





few ♦•**»> * j M rH'H' r' JW'Aik? r y. v , .t>i.‘ r. rsi l- > 

• #^K£u. £ 4*HirAf t*i. -f*j * : iVKH^i«'- i V 1 >•'•* t HmH*- ‘4*i>-> tr** * 


i •W^WVf^xr ‘ ’VyAv’ v f '^y.•"■■•'»(/r.i»S^ii , W , i«'J-f?»--''*• w« •'•- 

f >-’•;(-> ;K..-) .(4<»-‘ u'* ; T;'f"4*'( , ‘f v •- , *-ft' -.}.» .r>y ,>•> 
















































































































































































































































* 















A 


STATEMENT OF THE CASE 


OF THE DEPOSED 


RAJA OF SATTARA, 


TAKEN FROM THE 


OFFICIAL PAPERS PRINTED BY PARLIAMENT, 


AND BY THE 


COURT OF DIRECTORS OF THE EAST INDIA COMPANY. 


REMARKS UPON THE EVIDENCE 


ADDUCED AGAINST HIM. 


W. N. NICHOLSON, ESQ. M.A. 


BARRISTER AT LAW. 


LONDON: 

PRINTED BY G. NORMAN, MAIDEN LANE, COVENT GARDEN. 

March, 1845. 





\ 



» 




■4 










• \ 



TO 


RUNGO BAPOJEE, 

Vakeel (or Envoy) to H. Highness the deposed Raja of Sattara. 


My dear Sir, 

I have carefully gone through the papers pub¬ 
lished by Parliament in relation to the case of the ex-Raj a 
of Sattara, and I have no hesitation in expressing my 
opinion that the evidence contained in those papers is 
altogether insufficient to justify the conclusion at which the 
Indian authorities have arrived, namely, that his Highness 
was guilty of the crimes of which he was accused. 

It is almost unnecessary to add, that whether the ex-Raja 
be in fact innocent or guilty, his alleged treason can never 
be considered as proved until he has had an opportunity 
of meeting the case raised against him, and has failed in 
disproving the facts upon which that case rests. 

I am, 

My dear Sir, 

(Signed) W. N. Nicholson. 

44, Chancery Lane, 

February 19 th, 1845. 


Jj 

a 

f 

r*' 






TO THE READER. 


The following pages have been written at my request, 
for the purpose of calling attention to the injustice of those 
proceedings of the Indian authorities which have termi¬ 
nated in the deposal of my Sovereign, the ex-Raj a of Sat- 
tara, and of pointing out some of the numerous contradic¬ 
tions and inconsistencies which exist in the evidence 
brought forward against him. From the great length of 
the papers published by Parliament in relation to this 
case, filling four folio volumes, and the large proportion of 
irrelevant matter which they contain, it is impossible, 
without a great expense of time and labour, to become 
acquainted with the real facts : but it is hoped that a 
perusal of the following remarks will suffice to convince 
the reader, that the ex-Raj a has not only never been 
proved guilty of the crimes laid to his charge, but that 
the very weakness of the case against him affords strong 
ground for believing him innocent: and that his deposal 
was an act of the most flagrant injustice and oppression. 

A fair and open investigation of the charges against his 
Highness, not conducted, as the proceedings have hitherto 
been, in his absence, and without his knowledge, but 
allowing him those advantages in preparing his defence 
which the first principles of justice require that every 
accused party should enjoy, cannot, I am satisfied, fail 
in proving his entire innocence of all participation in 
the alleged treasonable conspiracies against the British 
Government. 

Rungo Bapojee, 

Vakeel to H. II. the deposed Raja of Sat tar a. 

9, Blandford Place, Regent’s Park, 

February, 1845. Jb 







A STATEMENT, 


ETC. 


Before proceeding to examine the charges upon the 
supposed proof of which the late Raja of Sattara has been 
deprived of his throne, and banished from his native 
country, it will be material to advert shortly to certain cir¬ 
cumstances which led to ill-feeling between his Highness 
and the Bombay Government, and which will in some de¬ 
gree account for the strong prejudice which, as will be seen, 
was entertained, with few exceptions, by the members of 
that Government against him. 

In the year 1819, on the quelling of the insurrection of 
Bajee Row, the usurper of the sovereignty of the Mahratta 
Empire, the late Raja of Sattara was placed by the British 
Government on the throne of his ancestors—a situation 
which, according to the testimony of those who have suc¬ 
cessively filled the office of Resident at his Court, he occu¬ 
pied, up to the time at which the present charges were 
brought against him, with credit to himself and to the satis¬ 
faction of the British Government. 

The following are extracts from speeches delivered at 
the East India House on the 12th February 1840, by 
General Briggs and General Robertson, who at different 
times filled the office of Resident at the Sattara Court. The 
former says:— 

(i During the whole time I was Resident at his (the ex- 
6 ‘ Raja’s) Court, the Raja’s conduct was most exemplary 
“ and worthy of a prince.” And the latter:— 

“ I discharge only a bare act of justice to the Raja of 
<f Sattara, in declaring that during the period of nearly five 

B 



2 


££ years that I was Resident at his Court, I never saw any 
££ disposition on his part to think lightly of his engagements 
“ with the Company, or to evince ought but gratitude for 
“ the advantages which had been conferred upon him; and 
“ 1 may safely say that nothing occurred, whilst I was there, 
££ which gave rise to any dissatisfaction either on my part 
“ or that of the Raja.” 

Nor was the admiration of the conduct of the ex-Raja con¬ 
fined to the Residents at his Court, for we find that in the 
year 1829, the Court of Directors, in a letter to the Bom¬ 
bay Government,* “ are impressed with a highly favourable 
££ opinion of the administration of the Raja of Sattara. He 
££ appears to be remarkable among the Princes of India for 
££ his mildness, frugality, and attention to business; to be 
££ sensible of what he owes to the British Government, and of 
“ the necessity of maintaining a good understanding with it. 
££ Nor does he, in his intercourse with your officers, furnish 
“ any ground of complaint, except an occasional manifes- 
“ tation of that jealousy of our controlling powers, which it 
££ can hardly be expected that any native Princes, however 
“ well-disposed to us, should entirely suppress.”* 

Again, in the year 1831, “ The information which your 
“ records supply, as to the proceedings of the Raja of Sattara, 
££ continues to confirm the highly favourable opinion we had 
££ formed of his disposition, and of his capacity for govern- 
“ ment. 

<£ His administration of a certain Jagheer is described as 
“ having been distinguished for good sense and disinterested- 
“ ness. His conduct to the dependent Jagheerdars was just 
“ and conciliatory ; and in his general government, while he 
“ appears to have seldom stood in need of your advice, he 
“ seems to have been duly sensible of its value on the few 
“ occasions when it was offered. 

And, subsequently, in the year 1834, in answer to a 


* Par. pa. 1267. 


t Par. pa. 1207. 


3 


letter from the Bombay Government, suggesting that some 
testimonial should be conferred upon the Raja, of the high 
sense in which his spirit and liberality were held, we find 
the Court of Directors requesting information from the 
Bombay Government as to what that testimonial should 
be.* 

Afterwards, in the same year, referring to an account 
drawn up by Colonel Robertson, the Resident at Sattara, 
which exhibited the ex-Raja in a most favourable light, 
the Court of Directors observe, “ He appears to be most 
u attentive to business, superintending every department of 
“ his government without the aid of a minister. He con- 
“ fines his own expenses, and those of all under him, within 
“ fixed limits. He pays all his establishment with perfect 
“ regularity ; but when in any year, his resources are in¬ 
adequate to his fixed expenses, a rateable reduction is 
“made from all allowances, not excepting his own. When 
“ he requested your opinion on a project for laying a tax 
“upon rent-free lands, his views appear to have extended 
“no further than the subjecting the owners of those lands 
<e to the same rateable reduction, for the purpose of meeting 
“ defalcations of revenue to which all his officers and him- 
“ self are subject. However, this measure, even thus limited, 
“ would have been a breach of faith: and as your advice was 
“ asked, you were bound to discountenance it. We should 
“ have regretted if a Prince, whose administration is a model 
“ to all native rulers, had been guilty of any infringement of 
“ the proprietary rights of a large class of his subjects. By 
“ his frugal and careful management, the Raja has kept free 
“ from debt : and as he does not accumulate, he is enabled 
“to expend large sums in liberality, and in the improvement 
“ of his country. We have read with great pleasure the 
“following passage from Lieut.-Colonel Robertson’s dis- 
“ patch:—“ He also maintains a well-regulated school at 

b 2 


* Par. pa. 1267. 


4 


“ Sattara, in which he has teachers of great respectability. 
44 both as to character and attainments. This seminary was 
44 closely examined, in all its details, last October, by a very 
“ competent judge, the Rev. Mr. Stevenson, of the Scottish 
44 Mission, who, I am happy to say, expressed the highest 
44 satisfaction with it, and did not scruple to say, he considered 
44 it a far more useful establishment than the College at 
44 Poona. In this seminary his Highness teaches Mahratta, 
44 Sanscrit, and the sciences usually taught in that tongue, 
44 Persian and English, as well as arithmetic, surveying, and 
“ other kinds of knowledge useful in the transaction of pub- 
44 lie business. In this school his Highness has a number of 
44 youths of his own caste, and relations of his (whose fore- 
44 fathers despised all such tuition) training up for his public 
44 service, and this is one of the causes why the Brahmins are 
44 hostile to him.” 

44 It appears to us,” the Court continues, 44 just and right, 
44 that you should from time to time signify to the Raja, not 
44 only your own, but our high satisfaction at his public con- 
“ duct, and the excellence of his administration.”* 

44 And on the 22nd of July, 1835, it was 44 Resolved, that 
44 having had reference to the letter from Bombay in the 
44 political department, dated the 21st of January last, in 
44 respect to the description of a testimonial that would be 
44 most acceptable to the Raja of Sattara as a mark of the 
44 Court’s sense of his conduct, the Chairman and Deputy- 
44 Chairman be requested to purchase a sword suitable to 
44 the occasion, and that a communication be made to the 
44 Bombay Government on the subject, at the period of 
44 sending out the sword, accompanied by a letter from the 
“ Court, to be presented to the Raja. 

44 That in framing such letter, it be declared, that this 
44 mark of distinction is founded, not solely on the public 


Par. pa. 1268. 


5 


“ spirit evinced by the Raja, in the construction of roads and 
“ the execution of other public works, as suggested by the 
“ Government of Bombay, but on the general and distin- 
“ guished merits of his Highness’s administration which so 
“justly entitle him to applause, as well as on the liberality 
“ which he has displayed in disbursing his private funds for 
“ public purposes.” 

Accordingly, on the 29th of December 1835, at the very 
time when, as we shall see, the treasonable plots in which 
the ex-Raja is alleged to have been a participator, were 
being prosecuted with the greatest vigour, the following 
letter* was addressed.to him by the Court of Directors:— 

u Your Highness, 

c< We have been highly gratified by the infor¬ 
mation from time to time transmitted to us by our 
Government* on the subject of your Highness’s exemplary 
fulfilment of the duties of that elevated situation in which 
it has pleased Providence to place you. 

“ A course of conduct so suitable to your Highness’s 
exalted station, and so well calculated to promote the pros¬ 
perity of your dominions, and the happiness of your 
people as that which you have wisely and uniformly 
pursued, while it reflects the highest honour on your own 
character, has imparted to our minds the feelings of un¬ 
qualified satisfaction and pleasure. The liberality also, 
which you have displayed in executing, at your own cost, 
various public works of great utility, and which has so 
greatly raised your reputation in the eyes of the princes 
and people of India, gives you an additional claim to our 
approbation, respect, and applause. 

4£ Impressed with these sentiments, the Court of Direc¬ 
tors have unanimously resolved to transmit to you a sword, 
which will be presented to you through the Government 
* Par. pa. 1268. 


6 


of Bombay, and which we trust you will receive with 
satisfaction, as a token of their high esteem and regard. 

“ With sincere wishes for your health and prosperity, we 
subscribe ourselves, in the name of the Court, 

“ Your Highness’s 

“ Most faithful friends, 

W. S. Clarke, Chairman. 

“ J. R. Carnac, Deputy.” 

With such exalted ideas, so recently entertained by the 
Court of Directors, of the ex-Raja’s conduct and character, 
it is difficult to account for the readiness with which they 
put faith in the absurd charges afterwards brought against 
him, or to believe that he could have so rapidly fallen from 
his acknowledged virtue. A man engaged in conspiracies 
having for their object the subversion of a Government so 
powerful as that of the British in India, would hardly at 
the same time have been spending his money and energies 
in the establishment of schools and the planning of roads. 

But to return. At the time of the enthronement of the 
ex-Raja, a treaty was entered into between him and the 
British Government, by which rights of sovereignty over 
certain Jagheers, or estates in the possession of certain 
feudal chiefs, were ceded to his Highness. This treaty was 
prepared by the Hon. Mountstuart Elphinstone, and was 
submitted to the ex-Raja by Captain Grant Duff, then the 
Resident at his Court. 

Till the year 1832 no difficulty arose on either side as to 
the proper construction of this treaty; but in that year a 
claim was for the first time advanced by the Bombay 
Government to a portion of those territories to which the 
Raja considered himself entitled, according to the proper 
interpretation of the treaty. It will not be necessary, nor 
indeed would it be consistent with the limits of the present 
statement, to enter at length into the merits of this claim. 


7 


It is sufficient to say, that the views of the ex-Raja were 
supported by Major-General Robertson, then Resident at 
Sattara, # and by General Lodwick, who subsequently filled 
the same situation,f and also by the Court of Directors. + 

His Highness remonstrated against what he considered 
a violation of his rights, and made many and fruitless 
attempts to obtain a recognition of his claims from the 
Bombay Government. Those claims were, however, after 
a long and tedious discussion, productive of the greatest 
vexation and annoyance to his Highness, rejected by the 
Bombay Government, but were subsequently allowed by 
the Court of Directors, who ordered § <c that the Raja’s 
claim to the reversion of the estates of the feudal chiefs of 
whom by treaty he was a Sovereign, and who held their 
titles from him under British guarantee, should be ad¬ 
mitted.” 

This allowance of his claim was, after some opposition on 
the part of the Bombay Government, communicated to the 
ex-Raja by General Lodwick, and in the month of May, 
1835, an interview took place between the ex-Raja and Sir 
Robert Grant, then Governor of Bombay, at which his 
Highness brought forward a claim upon six great Jagheers 
in the event of lapse by death or otherwise. Sir R. Grant 
unreservedly promised|| that the ex-Raja’s claims should, 
without delay, be submitted to the Court of Directors, and 
instructed General Lodwick to prepare a statement of them. 

Such a statement was accordingly prepared,^ embracing 
every point at issue, and sent to the Bombay Government 
on the 3d of July, 1835, for transmission to England. 

From May 1835, to May 1836, no notice whatever was 
taken of the ex-Raja’s claims by the Bombay Government, 
nor was any reason assigned for the non-performance of the 

* Par. pa. 556. 

t Par. pa. 1307, also debate at E. I. House, 12th and 13th Dec. 1840. 

| Par. pa. 495. § Par.pa. 1307. || Par. pa. 1249. H Par. pa. 1249. 


8 


explicit and solemn assurance of Sir R. Grant, that a state¬ 
ment of those claims should be forwarded to England. In 
May 1836, the ex-Raja again had an interview with Sir 
R. Grant, and being in a state of the greatest anxiety on 
the subject, reminded him of the pledge he had given a 
year before, and requested to be informed of the result. 
After much hesitation, and a conversation in English with 
the political secretary, Mr. Willoughby, and the resident, 
General Lodwick, the ex-Raja was told by Mr. Willoughby 
(who spoke for Sir R. Grant) that his claims had been re¬ 
ferred generally, but that in a short time they would be 
made the subject of a special report. 

Convinced by the result of this interview that he had 
been grossly deceived, and that, as was really the case, no 
reference whatever had been made to the home authorities 
the ex-Raja became exasperated against the Bombay 
Government, never afterwards appealed to them, but spoke 
of them always as having infringed his treaty, and robbed 
him of his rights. 

Finding that all hope was at an end of obtaining from the 
Bombay Government a reference of his claims to the home 
authorities, the ex-Raja resolved on sending an emissary 
of his own to the Court of Directors, a step which, though 
it was neither necessary nor wise, can hardly be wondered 
at, considering the importance of the subject, and the hope¬ 
lessness of his obtaining a fair settlement of his claim by 
any other means. At all events, the employment of this 
person, and the anxiety evinced by the ex-Raja upon the 
subject, which apparently occupied his whole thoughts, are 
quite inconsistent with the idea that he was at that time 
employed in fomenting conspiracies against the British 
Government. 

Such, then, being the feeling entertained by the Raja, it 
may readily be supposed that no great cordiality existed on 
the part of the Bombay Government towards him. Foiled, 


9 


in the first instance, in their attempted encroachment upon 
his Highness’s territories, and aware that he had, or thought 
that he had, great cause for complaint against them, the 
members of the Bombay Government could not be ex¬ 
pected to be amicably disposed towards the ex-Raj a. That 
the contrary was the case, appears too clearly from the con¬ 
duct of the proceedings which have led to his dethronement, 
to admit of a doubt. We see it in the ready credence given 
to the evidence of witnesses of the most doubtful character, 
in support of the most improbable stories—in the refusal to 
allow the ex-Raja those advantages in conducting his de¬ 
fence which are the undoubted right of every accused per¬ 
son—in the removal of General Lodwick from the residency 
at Sattara, and the appointment of Colonel Ovans in his 
stead—in the anxiety shewn by Colonel Ovans to gain fresh 
evidence in support of the several charges, an anxiety which 
led him to use the most unjustifiable means to effect his 
purpose ; and in the elaborate minutes of Sir Robert Grant, 
in which every circumstance telling against the ex-Raja is 
brought forward in the strongest light, and every argument 
that ingenuity could suggest, employed to prove his con¬ 
nection with the alleged conspiracies. 

It is true that Colonel Ovans denies* for himself and 
his colleague, Mr. Willoughby, that they entertained any 
feeling of prejudice against the ex-Raja; and as aproof of his 
denial, declares that previous to the charges being brought, 
he had never been to Sattara, and had never seen the ex- 
Raja,—as if any personal ill feeling were attributed to him. 
His position, as an officer of the Bombay Government, 
whose character, according to Sir Robert Grant,f was 
almost as deeply committed on the event of the discussion 
of the charges as that of the ex-Raja, sufficiently accounts 
for, though it cannot justify, the strong partiality which 
characterizes the whole conduct of Colonel Ovans at Sattara. 

* Par. pa. 1277. t Par. pa. 119. 


10 


Besides the prejudices thus entertained by the Bombay 
Government against the ex-Raja, his Highness had to 
contend against the avowed and determined enmity of a 
numerous and unscrupulous body of his own countrymen, the 
Brahmins. Religious differences existed between that sect 
and the Prubhoos, as to the propriety of the latter perform¬ 
ing certain rites. The cause of the latter party was espoused 
by the ex-Raja; and so great was the indignation felt 
against him by the members of the Brahmin caste, that in 
March 1831, the Brahmins of Waee, a very holy Brahmin 
town, and which was the native place of Nago Deorao, who> 
as will hereafter be seen, is alleged to have been the confi¬ 
dential agent of the ex-Raja in the most important of his 
alleged intrigues, presented a most intemperate petition to 
the Bombay Government, declaring their intention of rising 
in arms against his Highness, for the purpose of putting 
dowrn his Government. Yet, as we shall afterwards see, the 
heaviest charge against the ex-Raja rests upon the suppo¬ 
sition, that long previously to this period, he had placed 
himself entirely in the hands of Nago Deorao and his as¬ 
sociates, who, like their chief, were almost without an ex¬ 
ception, Brahmins. 

Such were the disadvantages against which the ex-Raja 
had to contend when circumstances arose, which led to 
suspicions of his Highness’s fidelity to the friends who had 
placed him on his throne. 

In the month of July, 1836, depositions made by two 
native officers of the 23rd regiment of Native Infantry, 
then at Sattara, named Sewgoolam Sing and Gooljar Mis- 
sur, accusing the ex-Raja and his Dewan, Govind Rao, of 
a treasonable attempt to seduce them, and by their means 
the Sepoys of their regiment, from their allegiance to the Bri¬ 
tish Government, were forwarded to Colonel Lodwick, the 
then Resident at Sattara, and by him to the Bombay Go¬ 
vernment ; subsequent proceedings, further implicating the 


11 


ex-Raja and his Dewan, were from time to time reported, 
and on the 7th of October, 1836,, Govind Row Dewan, 
Purushram, a perfumer in the town of Sattara, and Cooshea 
Maloo, a servant of the Dewan, were at the request of the 
Bombay Government, given up by the ex-Raja to the Re¬ 
sident, and placed in separate confinement. A secret Com¬ 
mission, consisting of the Resident Colonel Lodwick,Colonel 
Ovans, Quarter-master-General of the Bombay army, and 
Mr. Willoughby, Political Secretary to Government, was 
subsequently appointed to investigate the case. 

Their proceedings commenced on the 12th of October, 
and came to a conclusion on the 4th of November, 1836, 
occupying altogether a period of twenty-one days. 

Before proceeding to an examination of the evidence 
taken before the Commission, it will be necessary to make 
some observations on the course taken by the Bombay 
Government, and under their direction, by the Commis¬ 
sion, in refusing to allow the Raja to be present at their 
proceedings, or even to supply him with copies of the 
evidence. 

It has been said, that this was altogether a political and 
not a judicial question : that differences between States 
involving the issues of peace or war, or the forfeiture of the 
dominion of a dependent chief, cannot be placed on the 
footing of a criminal trial in a court of judicature. This no 
doubt is perfectly true: but because questions of this na¬ 
ture cannot be decided in precisely the same manner as 
charges affecting private individuals, must we jump at once 
to the conclusion that the forms and principles of justice 
are to be altogether disregarded in political questions, and 
that the stronger party are justified, not only in deciding 
upon the truth of their own accusation, but in withholding 
from the weaker the only means by which the falsity of 
that accusation, if false it be, can be proved ? 

The Raja had an absolute right to be present, either in 


12 


person, or by some competent representative, from the com¬ 
mencement of the investigation. Among civilized nations 
there is no form of trial in which the person accused is not al¬ 
lowed this privilege —a privilege founded on the elementary 
principles of justice, and without which it would be impos¬ 
sible for a defendant, however unjustly accused, to prove 
his innocence. This right was, however, denied to the 
ex-Raj a. Early in the proceedings we find that a minute 
was delivered in by Colonel Lodwick to his colleagues,* 
stating his impression that a communication ought to be 
made to the Raja, that the charges against him should be 
fully explained to him personally, and that he should be 
allowed a vakeel, or English advocate, to conduct his 
defence. From these suggestions the other members of 
the Commission thought proper to dissent, as being prema¬ 
ture, inconsistent with the instructions under which they 
acted, and calculated to defeat the object for which the 
Commission were assembled.^ Premature they could 
hardly be, for the depositions of the native officers, already 
before the Commission, were, if true, amply sufficient to 
criminate the ex-Raja; nor were they inconsistent with 
the instructions under which the Commission acted, the 
substance of those instructions being to ascertain the truth ; 
calculated to defeat the object of the Commission they un¬ 
doubtedly were, that object being, as from their whole 
proceedings we have a right to assume, the ruin of the ex- 
Raja, and the accumulation of a sufficient body of evidence 
to justify them to the world in such a proceeding. The 
ex-Raja, when he was at last made acquainted with the 
proceedings which were going on against him, applied for a 
copy in his own language of the depositions of the witnesses. 
This request the Commission in the first instance promised 
to comply with, and Mahratta copies were prepared. + 


* Par. pa. 320. 


t Par. pa. 320. 


X Par. pa. 348. 


13 


They found afterwards, however, difficult as it may seem, 
a reason which they considered justified them in refusing 
the Raja the benefit of these copies, stating “ that the pro¬ 
ceedings of the Commission being strictly secret, it did not 
consider itself authorised to grant a copy of any part of 
those proceedings to any person whatsoever.” * How men 
professing that the discovery of the truth was the sole object 
of their investigation, could have taken a step so certain to 
defeat their professed object, and in so gross violation of 
every principle of justice, it is difficult to conceive. The 
right of seeing the evidence supporting the charges against 
him is a privilege in our own country never refused to the 
meanest criminal. Upon what ground was the unfortunate 
ex-Raja to be placed in a worse position? Assuming him 
to have been innocent, which, however strong the proofs 
against him might in the first instance have appeared, he 
yet may have been, how was it possible for him to prove 
his innocence of charges, the particulars of which he 
was not acquainted with ? It is true that on the 13th 
day of the proceedings, the case against him, with the 
exception of four questions put to the Soobahdar Gooljar 
Missur, and the further examination of the Brahmin 
Untajee, having closed, the substance of the evidence was 
recapitulated to the ex-Raja by Mr. Willoughby; this, 
however, was all the information with which he was fur¬ 
nished, and it may be left to those who are acquainted with 
the length of the evidence, to decide as to the ability of 
any man, however acute, to frame a defence upon merely 
hearing it read. On the same day the Raja accordingly 
requested copies of the depositions affecting himself, which 
request was not then objected to, but was subsequently, as 
we have seen, in breach of faith, and contrary to every 
principle of justice, refused him. Nor is it difficult to 
imagine why the majority of the Commission shrunk from 
performing their promise of furnishing the ex-Raja with a 
* Par. p. 3G9. 


14 


copy of the evidence against him, or to account for the con¬ 
tinued opposition exhibited by Colonel Ovans, even to the 
directions of the Bombay Government. It must have been 
clear to them that such evidence would not bear the 
slightest scrutiny, and that had the Raja obtained the de¬ 
positions to which he was justly entitled, its intrinsic 
worthlessness, and the nature of the plot it was intended to 
sustain, would have been exposed, the innocence of the 
accused Prince would have been made manifest, and the 
object of the Bombay Government would have been 
defeated. 

On the evidence thus taken in his absence, the Commis¬ 
sion did not hesitate to express their conviction of the 
ex-Raja’s guilty participation in the alleged conspiracy. On 
what slight grounds this conviction was founded, and how 
unworthy of credit were the witnesses supporting the 
charge, tenderly handled as they were by their examiners, 
and exposed to nothing that could be called cross-examina¬ 
tion, it will be the object of the immediately succeeding 
pages to show. 

The substance of the story contained in the depositions 
of the native officers, and the examinations of the witnesses 
before the Commission, as contained * in the statement 
which Colonel Ovans was at last compelled, by the direc¬ 
tions of the Supreme Government of India, to prepare for 
the Raja’s information, is shortly as follows:— 

On the 11th July, 1836, a Brahmin named Untajee 
opened a communication of a treasonable nature with a 
Soobahdar named Sewgoolam Sing, of the 23rd regi¬ 
ment, then stationed at Sattara, and subsequently, on the 
21st of the same month, with a Soobahdar named Gooljar 
Missur, and a Havildar named Chunder Sing, both of the 
same regiment, stating that a plot had been formed against 
the British Government; and that in furtherance of this 

* Par. pa. IOOk 


15 


plot, it was intended to seduce the native troops from their 
allegiance; that the Dewan of the Raja and His Highness 
himself had entered into this plot, and that the Dewan 
had sent for the Soobahdar to communicate with him on 
the subject. On the 21st of July, the Soobahdar Sewgoo- 
lam Sing, accompanied by Soobahdar Gooljar Missur, and 
Chunder Sing, was taken by the Brahmin to the Dewan’s 
house in the town, when the two Soobahdars had an inter¬ 
view with the Dewan,who informed them that arrangements 
were in progress at every place, and that the Soobahdars 
must gain over their regiments—that when the regiment 
left Sattara, he would correspond with them, and that they 
should be made great men of. After this, they were taken 
to the Chouke, in front of the Raja’s palace, where His 
Highness then was, to whom they made a salaam. Other 
interviews took place after this, between the Brahmin and 
the Soobahdars, having reference to the above design, at 
which it was understood by the parties that they were 
shortly to have an interview with the ex-Raja. 

This interview was at first fixed for the 5th of August, 
but did not take place until the 8th of September, on which 
day, the Brahmin came to the lines of the 23rd regiment, 
and informed Soobahdar Gooljar Missur that the Raja had 
sent for him. The other Soobahdar, Sewgoolam Sing, was 
this day on guard at the Residency, and on being apprized 
of the invitation, he informed Colonel Lodwick of it, and 
was relieved by his orders. About sunset, the two Soo¬ 
bahdars and the Brahmin proceeded to the shop of Puru- 
shram, a perfumer, which is situated near the Dewan’s 
house; the Brahmin left them there, and afterwards re¬ 
turned, with two cloaks, in which (after the Brahmin had 
again gone out and returned) the Soobahdars having en¬ 
veloped themselves, went with him to the Dewan’s house. 
There they were taken into the Dewan’s sleeping apart¬ 
ments, and had an interview with the Dewan, who directed 


16 


them, on being introduced to the Raja, to state that they 
were ready to obey His Highness’s orders. 

While the Soobahdars were with the Dewan, a person, 
stated to be a relation of the ex-Raja of Nagpoor, came 
into the room, on which the Soobahdars were alarmed, but 
were re-assured by the Dewan. The Dewan went out, 
and said he would see if the Raja was alone, directing the 
Brahmin to follow with the Soobahdars, who having again 
put on the cloaks, were taken by the Brahmin to the 
Raja’s palace. They entered, and found the Dewan 
waiting for them—by him they were taken into an upper 
room , where the Raja was seated smoking a hookah. 
A woman, who was in the room, was immediately ordered 
out, after which the Raja alluded to the Soobahdars having 
salaamed to him on a former day. Sewgoolam Sing asked, 
what were His Highness’s orders. The Raja then spoke of 
certain disturbances as likely to arise in different quarters, 
by which it would be known that he was a party concerned 
—that he had been deprived of his country and wealth by 
the English—that Colonel Lodwick had informed him he 
would be sent either to Bombay, Calcutta, or England— 
that he was a Rajpoot, and not a Brahmin. He also 
stated the reason why he caused the huts of the Sepoys at 
Mahableshwur to be removed, and finally instructed the 
Soobahdars to gain over such of their men as they could 
rely upon, and that he would reward them. At the end of 
the interview, the Soobahdar Sewgoolam Sing took off his 
turban, and besought the Raja not to betray him to his 
officers. Having received assurances on this point, and 
having been presented with pawn, the interview with His 
Highness terminated. The Dewan gave the Soobahdars a 
Sepoy to escort them beyond the town limits ; and having 
returned to the perfumer’s shop, and put off the cloaks, they 
reached their own lines about ten o’clock, and reported 
what had occurred to their officers, giving them the pawn 


17 


they had received in the palace. The following morning, 
their depositions were committed to writing. 

The evidence upon which the Commission considered the 
Raja’s participation in the alleged treason to have been 
proved, was that of the native officers, the servant Cooshea, 
the perfumer Purushram, and the confession of the Brahmin 
Untajee. Since the report of the Commission, Colonel 
Ovans succeeded, as we shall hereafter see, in extorting a 
confession from Govind Row, which, with certain statements 
made by Kassee Punt Bundrey, Abba Mahreek, Abba 
Parusnees, Yellojee Mohitey, and Abba Mohitey, form the 
whole evidence against the ex-Raja upon the present 
charge. 

A native was also examined, whose name, for fear of the 
consequences to himself, was kept secret by the Commission, 
but who is now known to have been Ballajee Punt Nattoo. 
His evidence, however, did not touch in any manner upon 
the charge in question. This person was an inveterate 
enemy, though apparently a friend of the ex-Raja, and is 
not without reason suspected to have been the chief mover 
of those plots which have led to the downfall of his 
Highness. 

The fact of his enmity is sufficiently apparent from his 
evidence before the Commission, by whom he was most 
unfairly and improperly allowed to pour forth, without even 
having been sworn, a mass of hearsay accusations against 
his Highness, not one word of his evidence having the 
slightest reference to the charge which they had been sent 
to investigate, that six months previously he had reported 
to Mr. John Warden, that the Raja contemplated, if he 
had not committed, a breach of his engagements with the 
British Government. He also repeats a statement of 
Appa Sahib, the brother, but well known enemy of the 
ex-Raja, as to the destruction of a letter from the ex-Raja 
of Nagpore, thus showing himself to be the confidant of 
his Highness’s most bitter foe. 

c ' 


18 


We find, too, from General Lodwick’s letter* to the 
Court of Directors, that in November, 1835, this person, 
in the course of a visit to General Lodwick, observed, that 
the Raja and his intimates were in the habit of conversing 
about the probable fall of the British Government. He 
then observed that there was some rumour of a plot 
formed by the neighbouring feudal chiefs subordinate to 
the British Government, and particularly by the chief of 
Sanglee, and the Raja of Colapoor, and that the Sattara 
Raja might be talked over to join in it, but that he (General 
Lodwick) would be enabled to establish the truth or falsehood 
of his report of the Rajas being about to join in such con¬ 
spiracy, by his Highness intimating his intention to join a 
hunting party on the borders of those states, or his visiting 
those chiefs on his annual tour during the next four months. 

66 I ascertained,” continues General Lodwick, “ that this 
information came from the Raja’s brother, and I attached 
proportionately less credit to it,” and on finding that his 
Highness did not attend the hunting party, nor make the 
visits suggested, and being also aware that a deadly per¬ 
sonal animosity existed between the Raja and the Chief of 
Sanglee, and that the Raja of Colapoor had on a former 
occasion shewn his hostility to the Raja of Sattara, by 
refusing to receive a visit of ceremony from him, General 
Lodwick set down the information as false. 

Nor is it difficult to account for the enmity of Ballajee 
Punt Nattoo towards the ex-Raja. He had solicited in 
vain the post of Dewan under that Prince—a post which he 
has since succeeded in obtaining under his successor. He 
was also a leading Brahmin, a caste, which, as has been 
seen, was openly at variance with the ex-Raja, on account 
of his opposition to them in their religious dispute with the 
Prubhoos. He had also advanced considerable sums of 
money to the Punt Suchew, one of those Jagheerdars over 
whose territories the Raja claimed rights of sovereignty, 
which were disputed by the Bombay Government; and 
* Par. pa. 1306. 


19 


the recovery of this debt would of course be greatly 
facilitated by the transfer of a portion of this Jagheer to 
the British jurisdiction, the money having been originally 
lent in contravention to the orders of the ex-Baja. Bal- 
lajee Punt Nattoo was, therefore, deeply interested in en¬ 
deavouring to prevent the recognition of the claims of the 
ex-Raj a which have been already alluded to, in addition to 
the feelings of disappointed ambition and irritated secta¬ 
rianism, which actuated him to seek the downfall of his 
sovereign. 

In the early part of the proceedings, several European 
Officers of the 23rd regiment were examined by the Com¬ 
missioners for the purpose of shewing that no ill-feeling 
existed on the part of that regiment towards the Raja, a 
course which certainly justifies the inference that the 
Commission had at least heard some reports of such a feeling. 
Colonel Ovans represents the depositions of these officers 
as proving that no enmity existed between the men of their 
regiment and the ex-Raja; but the evidence of Lieutenant 
Stock goes directly to prove that such a feeling did exist 
on the part of the men, and more particularly on the part 
of the Soobahdar Gooljar Missur. Lieutenant Stock de¬ 
poses as follows —“ I received a note from Gooljar Missur, 
commanding the Governor’s escort at Mahableshwur last 
hot season, alluding to the huts of the detachment having 
been destroyed by desire of the Raja. This appeared to 
make an impression on them, and they expressed satisfac¬ 
tion to me, when some camels and horses of the Raja’s were 
killed in descending the Roturda Ghat, a short time af¬ 
terwards.”* A mass of evidence was, towards the close of 
the proceedings, brought forward by the Raja, to establish 
the same fact (p. 352), to which, however, the Commission 
in their report paid no attention. 

On referring to the story told by Sewgoolam Sing, the 
first circumstance which must strike the mind of every body 
is its extreme improbability. Can it be believed, that the 
* Par. pa. 323. 

c 2 


20 


Brahmin Untajee, whether acting under the orders of the 
Baja, or the Dewan, or on his own responsibility, would 
have been mad enough to communicate facts which might 
place his life in jeopardy, to persons with whom he had no 
previous acquaintance, and about whom he knew nothing ? 
So incredible did such a proceeding appear, even to the 
Commissioners, that they were themselves constrained to 
notice it in their report, and to profess their utter inability 
to explain it.* It is true, the Brahmin is said to have ex¬ 
torted an oath of secrecy from Sewgoolam Sing; but he 
afterwards made similar disclosures to Gooljar Missur and 
Chunder Sing, without a similar precaution—a circum¬ 
stance in itself full of suspicion, for what necessity could 
there be for requiring an oath from Sewgoolam Sing, which 
would not apply, with at least equal force, to the other two. 
The natural inference, particularly when we find that the 
Brahmin had, for two years previously, been in the habit of 
frequenting the camp,f is that the Soobahdar’s denial of 
their previous acquaintance was a falsehood, and that the 
story of the oath was introduced to bolster up a tale which, 
without it, Sewgoolam Sing and the Brahmin feared would 
have been absolutely incredible. 

It may here be observed, that the circumstance of the 
Soobahdar Sewgoolam Sing having taken an oath, which 
he had no intention of keeping, and which the Commission 
slightly advert to as “ a laxity of morals but which they 
do not seem to consider as at all affecting the credibility of 
the witness, would certainly not have been so lightly treated 
in any properly constituted court of justice. 

There are other circumstances connected with the first 
interview between the Soobahdar and the Brahmin, which 
are equally absurd and improbable. Sewgoolam Sing 
states,§ in relating his second meeting with the Brahmin, 
after the introduction of Chunder Sing, “ I put him on his 
guard, and told him to listen when the Brahmin repeated 

* Par. pa. 311. f Par. pa. 320. Capt. Liddle’s evidence. 

t Par. pa. 317. $ Par. pa. 325. 


21 


his story. I whispered into the Havildar's ear to go and 
report all he had heard to the Adjutant, Lieutenant Stock 
and afterwards, “ the Havildar returned and whispered to 
me that Lieutenant Stock had sent for me, and wished the 
Brahmin to accompany me.” Now, can it be conceived 
that a man, communicating the particulars of a treasonable 
conspiracy, to a person of whose fidelity he had no know¬ 
ledge, would not have been alarmed by all this whispering, 
this going out and returning? Would he not have been on 
the watch for any sign or motion, tending to show an in¬ 
tended betrayal of himself ? 

That the Raja, who is represented on all sides to be an 
acute and sensible man, should have engaged in so insane 
an undertaking, as the alleged attempt upon the Sepoys’ 
fidelity, is if anything more incredible than the details of 
the story of Sewgoolam Sing. His Highness, indebted for 
his throne to the British Government, was well aware of 
their strength and power ; yet we are to believe, that by 
gaining over a single native regiment (for no attempt was 
made to corrupt any other than the 23rd), and unassisted 
by other native Princes,* he expected to overthrow the 
British Government in India. Sir Robert Grant himself, 
in his minute of the 30th May, 1839, writesf—“ The 
attempt to tamper with our native troops, viewed as an 
isolated act, appears so monstrously wild and extravagant, 
as to induce this Government to think, that unless some 
more distinct and intelligible act of impropriety could be 
brought home to the Raja, it would not be expedient to 
adopt extreme measures against his Highness.” The ab¬ 
surdities which the Raja is made to utter in the course of 
his alleged interviews with the Soobahdars, afford a fresh 
reason for doubting the truth of the story. His Highness is 
represented as having complained that the Resident had 
threatened to send him to Bombay, Calcutta, or England; 
yet General Lodwick, when appealed to by his Highness, 
declares* that he had never said anything of the kind. 

* Par.'pa. 314, 315. t Par. pa. 196. t Par. pa. 348. 


22 


To proceed, however, to the evidence on which the 
Commission considered the charge proved. 

With regard to the depositions of the native officers* it is 
observable* that they were not statements of facts which the 
deponents had not previously expected to be called upon to 
aecount; but on the contrary, that since the first interview 
between Sewgoolam Sing and the Brahmin, every circum¬ 
stance had been carefully treasured up, and a journal kept 
by Gooljar Missur, to w T hich his brother officer was privy. 
It is not, therefore, a matter of surprise that these deposi¬ 
tions should agree in all the material facts—but that they 
should differ so essentially as they do, from the statements 
subsequently made by the deponents before the Commis¬ 
sion, surely affords grave cause for suspicion, and should 
not have been so lightly passed over as it was by the Com¬ 
missioners’ Report. # 

In the stories told by the different witnesses before the 
Commission, the discrepancies and inconsistencies, both 
with each other, and with the original depositions of the 
native officers, are very numerous and striking. To men¬ 
tion only a few of them. 

Sewgoolam Sing, in relating the circumstances of the 
first visit to the house of the Dewan, states as follows :f — 
w We went into a private apartment, and the Dewan ordered 
a servant to shut the door, and fasten it on the inside 
The servant, therefore, must have remained in the room — 
for by the evidence of Gooljar Missur ,% the room had but 
one door. Gooljar Missur on the contrary states§—“ When 
we got in the door was fastened on the outside ,” without 
any mention of the servant at all. While the servant 
Cooshea, whose evidence the Commission describes as provi¬ 
dentially corroborative of that of the Soobahdars, states]} 
that when the Sepoys arrived he was with the Dewan, who 
told him to go on one side, and that he went behind the 
door —an expression which infers that the door was not shut 

* Par. pa. 315, para. 9. t Par. pa. 3*25. t Par. pa. 329. 

§ Par. pa. 329. || Par. pa. 335. 


23 


at all. Why was not Cooshea asked whether the door re¬ 
mained open or not ? The only answer—and it is one 
which must be given to many other questions of a similar 
nature, is, that the object of the Commission being to prove 
the Raja’s guilt, any little discrepancies and contradictions 
which were not too glaring to escape general observation, 
were accordingly passed over without notice. It is observ¬ 
able, that neither in the depositions of the Soobahdars, nor 
in Gooljar Missur’s journal, is any mention made of this 
servant—a circumstance which, as remarked by Mr. 
Shakspeare,* cannot fail to excite a suspicion, that he was 
brought forward to fill up a link in the chain of swearing 
against the Dewan, which, without his evidence might have 
been insufficient. 

A similar remark applies to the old woman introduced 
by the Soobahdars in their examination before the Commis¬ 
sion, as having been present on the occasion of their visit 
to the Raja, they having distinctly stated, in their original 
depositions, that they found the Raja alone on that occasion. 

Again, in continuation of his account of the first visit to 
the Dewan’s house, Sewgoolam Sing states, that Untajee 
said to the Dewan, Scindia’s Vakeel had arrived,f having 
in his original deposition, + sworn that 4t a person came in and 
said that the Vakeel from Scindia’s court had arrived.” 
Gooljar Missur states,§ “ we heard some one observe from 
below , Scindia’s Vakeel has arrived;” having neither in hi s 
original deposition nor in his journal, mentioned the arrival 
of any person during this interview with the Dewan. The 
providential || witness of the Commission, Cooshea Maloo, 
the Dewan’s servant, swears^f “ that no visitor of consequence 
arrived at the Dewan’s house while the Sepoys were there.” 
He afterwards states, ## however; that while the Soobahdars 
were with the Dewan, “ Abba Sahib Mahrek was sitting 
outside of the room. Govind Raojee told me to ask him 
to come in ; he opened the door and went in.” 

Again, we find Sewgoolam Sing, when recounting the 

* Par. pa. 71. t Par. pa. 325 ; . J Par. pa. 515. § Par. pa. 329. 

(I Par. pa. 312. IT Par. pa. 335. ** Par. pa 878. 


24 


particulars of the second visit to the Dewan’s house, stating 
as follows*-— c< We were challenged by a Sepoy, and Unta- 
jee answered, They are our own people.” The Brahmin 
then took us to the large room, to which we were in the first 
instance taken at our former interviews, and seated us. In 
less than a minute the door of another room was opened, 
when ice saw the Dewan and a servants who has since been 
made a prisoner. Untajee took us in, when the Dewan 
ordered the servant to go and shut the door; this he did, 
leaving us four persons together.” Gooljar Missur says 
nothing about the challenge from the Sepoy, and states as 
followsf—“ We ascended by the same staircase as before, 
when the Brahmin said, sit down awhile. We did not go 
into the same room as before, but into one having a bed¬ 
stead in it, resembling those in use among European gentle¬ 
men. On entering, no one was there , but immediately after 
the Dewan appeared.” Thus, according to the first Soo- 
bahdar, the party found the Dewan and the servant in the 
room into which they w T ere finally brought, while according 
to the second, the room was empty when they entered, and 
the Dewan came in afterwards alone. The Sepoy who, 
according to Sewgoolam Sing, challenged the party on 
their arrival at the Dewan’s house, was not examined by 
the Commission, though Sewgoolam Sing afterwards states % 
that he should be able to recognize him. 

In detailing the signs made to them by the Raja when 
they were brought in front of the palace, the statements of 
the Soobahdars differ materially from each other, and also 
from that of the Brahmin and Chunder Sing. Sewgoolam 
Sing swears§ that he slightly bent his head and raised his 
hand. Gooljar Missur states|| that he slightly inclined his 
head but did not move his hand; while Untajee asserts^f 
that the Raja looked at them, but did not move his hand. 
Chunder Sing describes the signs to have been a slight 
motion of the hand downwards, and then horizontal. 

* Par. pa. 327. t Par. pa. 330. \ Par. pa. 342. 

$ Par. pa. 325. || Par. pa. 329. % Par. pa. 338. 


25 


Again, Sewgoolam Sing states,* that on the third visit of 
the Brahmin to his house, viz. on the 24th of July, he sent 
a sepoy, named Ramsurm, to call Gooljar Missur, the other 
Soobahdar statingf that Chunder Sing brought the message. 
The sepoy mentioned by Sewgoolam was not examined 
by the Commission, and no reason is given for their not 
having done so. 

Then in relating the visit to Purushram’s house previous 
to their interview with the Raja, Sewgoolam states^ that 
the Brahmin was absent three times before he finally re¬ 
turned with the disguises in which they went to the Dewan’s 
house, while Gooljar Missur asserts that the Brahmin only 
went out twice.§ 

A material discrepancy also occurs in the statements of 
the Soobahdars as to the room in which their interview with 
the Baja took place. First, we find Sewgoolam Sing 
swearing,|| that “going on a few paces, we arrived at a nar¬ 
row staircase, which we ascended : the Dewan went first, 
Untajee second, I third, and Gooljar fourth, and entered a 
good sized room, when we saw the Raja sitting and smoking 
a hooka with a long snake, and a woman on his right hand.” 
Gooljar Missur, on the contrary, distinctly states, that the 
Raja was not in an upper room, and on being specially 
asked whether they ascended a staircase, answered, No ! 

Here then are two witnesses relating facts and describing 
places which they had previously carefully observed, with 
a view to their future examination, and who, moreover, 
kept a journal of those facts, differing essentially in their 
statements of so material a circumstance as the place at 
which the most important interview in their whole story 
occurred. This difference in the statements of the two 
Soobahdars was too glaring to escape the notice even of the 
Commission, and they accordingly speak of it in their 
report^ as a discrepancy of importance, and say that it 
“ at the time attracted the attention of the Commission.” 

* Par. pa. 326. t Par. pa. 329. $ Par. pa. 326. § Par, pa. 330. 

H Par. pa. 327. f Par. pa. 340. 


26 


Why then did they not take measures to ascertain the real 
facts of the case ? Why should not Sewgoolam Sing have 
been required at once to conduct one of the members of 
the Commission to the upper room in which he stated the 
nterview to have taken place, and Gooljar Missur, in like 
manner, have been directed to point out the lower room, 
which he alleged to have been the scene of the treason ? 
Instead of this, however, the two Soobahdars, their exami¬ 
nation having concluded on the 5th day of the proceedings 
of the Commission, were allowed to communicate freely with 
each other, and to compare notes* on the evidence they had 
given. The result was what everybody might have expected, 
and what no doubt the Commission did expect, that on the 
next occasion on which Gooljar Missur was called before 
the Commission, viz. on the 9th day of the proceedings, he 
begged to correct this discrepancy of importance, and 
statedf that the interview with the Raja occurred in an 
upper room. This voluntary correction, considering the 
circumstances under which it was made, instead of adding 
strength to the evidence of the Soobahdars, affords 
additional ground for suspecting collusion between them. 
It is remarkable too, that in a confession^ extorted from the 
Dewan, after the proceedings of the Commission had closed, 
under circumstances which will be hereafter adverted to, 
and which were of such a nature as to render it wholly 
worthless, the interview with the Raja is stated to have 
taken place in the Chouk, or open space before the palace; 
so that we find three out of the four witnesses alleged to 
have been present at this treasonable meeting, assigning 
different places for its occurrence. 

As to the manner in which the Brahmin Untajee was 
enticed within the lines, Sewgoolam Sing states§ that a 
messenger was sent to him by Purushram, three days after 
the last visit of the Soobahdars to Purushram’s shop, in¬ 
viting him to come into the lines to purchase a cow. 

* Col. Lodwick’s Letter, Par. pa. 1317. t Par. pa. 340. 

X Par. pa. 872. § Par. pa. 328. 


27 


Gooljar Missur asserts* that the invitation was given to 
Untajee by the Soobahdars themselves, on their last meeting 
with him at Purushram’s shop. 

There is also a circumstance which is mentioned by 
the Soobahdars as having occurred at the close of their 
alleged interview with the Raja, which the evidence of 
other witnesses renders, to say the least of it, highly im¬ 
probable. Both the Soobahdars swear,f that on leaving 
the Raja, after their visit to the palace, they each received 
pawn from the hand of his Highness. The Brahmin Un¬ 
tajee swears,J however, that the pawn was given by the 
Dewan, — and Ballajee Punt Nattoo deposes,§ that the 
Raja never gave pawn to any one with his own hand. 
The attention of the other Commissioners was called by 
Colonel Lodwick to this remarkable discrepancy in the 
evidence, |1 who at the same time laid before the Commis¬ 
sioners some bundles of pawn, which he himself had lately 
received from the Raja, and pointed out the difference be¬ 
tween them and the bundles which had been produced by 
the Soobahdars. Now had the Commission desired to 
ascertain the truth of the Soobahdars’ statements as to this 
receipt of pawn, why did they not send for the man whose 
business it was to make up pawn for the palace, and in¬ 
quire from him whether the bundles produced by Colonel 
Lodwick were such as were invariably given at the palace, 
or whether bundles such as those produced by the Soobah¬ 
dars were ever prepared ? But no such desire was shewn, 
no such course pursued by the Commission; and this fact, 
which cannot be otherwise considered than as of great im¬ 
portance, as regards the credibility of the Soobahdars, and to 
which the attention of the Commission had beer* sopointedly 
directed by Colonel Lodwick, was suffered to jpa^s unno¬ 
ticed at the time, and was not even mentioned in their report. 

With these inconsistencies and contradictions before 
their eyes, it is difficult to find a reason (except in the 

* Par. pa. 331. f Par. pa. 327, 331. X Par. pa. 338. 

§ Par. pa. 347. || Par. pa. 518. 


‘28 


strong prejudice against which, as we have seen, the Raja 
jiad to contend) for the unbounded confidence placed 
by the Commission in the evidence of the Soobahdars, es¬ 
pecially when we find them stating in their report,* that 
they “ cannot believe one part of their evidence, and dis¬ 
believe altogether another part,” 

The evidence of these witnesses in support of the charge 
having thus become open to suspicion, the proper and na¬ 
tural course for Judges really desiring to ascertain the 
truth, would have been to subject them to an immediate 
and severe cross-examination, and there can be no doubt, 
that had such a course been pursued, and had the cross- 
examination of these witnesses been conducted with that 
strictness and severity which the discrepancies already men¬ 
tioned so loudly called for, the falsehood of their whole 
story would have been exposed; and instead of being 
loaded with rewards and praises by the Bombay Govern¬ 
ment, they would have met with that punishment which 
their deliberate perjury so richly deserved. Instead, how¬ 
ever, of this course being pursued, the Soobahdars were dis¬ 
missed on the conclusion of their examination, without any 
precautions being taken to prevent a free communication 
with each other, and accordingly, as we have already seen, 
one of them four days afterwards, requested leave to correct 
one of the most material contradictions that had occurred 
between his evidence and his fellow officer’s. The short 
and limited cross-examination, if cross-examination it could 
be called, which these witnesses underwent, was postponed 
till the tenth day of the proceedings, five days after the 
conclusion of their examination in chief. 

In the cross-examination, such as it was, which the Soo¬ 
bahdars were at length subjected to, fresh discrepancies 
and contradictions were elicited. Thus, on being interro¬ 
gated as to the dress of the Raja, Sewgoolam Sing stated,f 
“ His Highness was naked to the waist—he had no turban 
on.” Gooljar Missur, on being asked the same question, 
* Par. pa. 312. t Par. pa. 342. 


29 

replied,* 44 He was naked to the waist—I think he had a 
turban on.” 

Sewgoolam Sing, on being interrogated as to the journal 
kept by Gooljar Missur, at first stated,f that he did not 
know whether Gooljar Missur kept such a journal or not— 
he never told him that he did;—but afterwards corrected 
himself, and stated that Gooljar Missur did keep a memo¬ 
randum, and that he had himself seen it; and afterwards, 
on being asked whether he and Gooljar compared notes 
after each interview, he says,* 44 we met together after the 
first meeting with the Dewan, and wrote down what had 
occurred, we frequently conversed together on the subject: 

I am not certain, but I think we wrote down what had oc¬ 
curred at the interview with the Raja.” 

Gooljar Missur, on being asked whether he and Sewgoo¬ 
lam Sing compared notes after each interview with the 
Brahmin, says,§ 44 We have conversed with each other on 
the subject, in order that we might recollect whatever 
occurred, but we never met for the purpose of writing it 
down together;” and subsequently|| he says that 44 he wrote 
it when quite alone.” And in regard to the same journal, 
Gooljar Missur, on one occasion,^ states that it was written 
in Hindostanee, and afterwards,** that he used to show it to 
the adjutant, who told him to write it in English, which 
gave him great trouble. In reference to this journal, 
Gooljar Missur, on one occasion, statesf-j* that he wrote 
down the dates, but no particulars, and on the falsehood of 
this statement appearing when the papers were subse¬ 
quently produced, he explains;^ the error by stating that 
he mistook the word tutseel (particulars) for tuswer (per¬ 
sons), the question which elicited the original statement 
being simply how he came to remember dates. 

That the Commission were not unanimous in considering 
that the Soobahdars had been sufficiently cross-examined, 
appears from the following passage in a letter from General 

* Par. pa. 343. t Par. pa. 342. t Par. pa. 342. 

§ Par. pa. 343. [| Par. pa. 349. f Par. pa. 343. ** Par. pa. 349. 

tf Par pa. 343. Par. pa. 349. 


30 


Lodwick to the Court of Directors, dated 13th June, 
1842.* General Lodwick says, “ Upon that occasion,” 
(alluding to his proposal of a cross-examination of the 
Soobahdars) “ I certainly said, that from my observations 
on the appearance of the junior Soobahdar before the Com- 
mision, and the hesitation of the senior native officer at 
one of the examinations, or cross-examinations, which took 
place, I proposed that they should be in readiness for a 
more decided cross-examination, as to the discrepancies in 
their evidence, of which I had taken notes. These men 
were at the Residency on the last day of the proceedings, 
but my colleagues saw no necessity for calling them in, 
and the opportunity was lost. In my opinion , a cross- 
examination of these witnesses would have been fatal to their 
evidence. My own notes of the inquiry were voluminous, 
but they were taken from me, and destroyed, on the prin¬ 
ciple that the Commission being secret, no document 
should remain but its proceedings.” 

During the period intervening between the examination 
of the native officers and their so-called cross-examination, 
the prisoners Cooshea Maloo, Purushram, Untajee, and 
Govind Row Dewan, were examined. The Dewan on that 
occasion positively deniedj- the facts sworn to by the Soo¬ 
bahdars, that he had ever received them into his house, or 
that he was acquainted with any native officers or Sepoys 
of the regiment then in Sattara. He denounced the whole 
story as false, and asserted that the Soobahdars, Cooshea, 
and the Brahmin, had joined in a conspiracy. 

The evidence of UntajeeJ is a mass of prevarication and 
contradiction, and the credit due to his testimony cannot 
be better described than in the words of the Commission. 
They say—§ <£ It is impossible to place any reliance on 
what this Brahmin states, unless he is corroborated by 
trustworthy evidence; and as no proof exists of his com¬ 
munications having been authorised either by the Dewan 

* Par. pa. 1317. t Par. pa. 340, 341. t Par. pa. 337* 

§ P ar. pa. 311. 


31 


or His Highness; and as he himself has confessed that a 
part of these communications was his own invention, they 
are totally undeserving of consideration, except so far as he 
himself is concerned.” And again,* “With regard to the 
accomplice Untajee, we are quite ready to admit all His 
Highness has urged against him, for on the face of our pro¬ 
ceedings he appears to be a man of the most worthless and 
unprincipled character;” and yet, admitting all this, the 
Commissioners do not hesitate to place his name among 
those of the witnesses upon whose evidence they considered 
the different facts of the case to be established—the trust¬ 
worthy evidence by which he was supported being that of 
the Soobahdars, whose testimony, as the preceding pages 
show, was far more in need of support for itself, than 
capable of adding credit to that of others ; and the con¬ 
fession of the servant Cooshea, which is as full of contra¬ 
diction, and from his previous bad character, even less 
worthy of credit, than the statements of the previous wit¬ 
nesses. 

The circumstances of the arrest of this man Cooshea, on 
which the Commissioners lay much stress, as evidencing 
the truth of his story, are in themselves suspicious, and 
afford good ground for the supposition that he was acting a 
part. He is represented r as having shewn the greatest 
alarm—to have held up his hands in a supplicating atti¬ 
tude, and finally, on being told that he was a prisoner, to 
have fallen down apparently senseless. But what cause 
was there for all this apparent terror? Supposing the story 
told by the Soobahdars to be true, Cooshea had committed 
no crime, nor was he in any way implicated in the plot. 
He had on one occasion given pawn to the Soobahdars by 
the order of his master, just as a servant, at a meeting of a 
similar nature in this country, might have handed round 
coffee. He had not, and he knew that he had not, any 
cause for fear, and the extreme agitation displayed by him 
can only be looked upon as a clever piece of acting, and 
* Par. pa. 314. + Par. pa. 314. 


32 


therefore laying the whole of his evidence open to strong 
suspicion. 

One of the reasons given by the Commissioners for 
placing the most implicit credit in the evidence of this 
witness, is rather a curious one, viz.* “because he was 
evidently under an impression that he was giving his evi¬ 
dence against the Soobahdars.” It is ridiculous to suppose 
that Cooshea could have committed so great a blunder. 
Why the very person who caused his arrest, who accused 
him before his face of having given the pawn, was one of 
those Soobahdars, not, be it observed, under restraint, or 
having the appearance of a person suspected of treason, 
but elated with the ready credence which his story had met 
with, and flushed with the hope of anticipated reward. 
The impression imputed to Cooshea by the Commissioners 
is utterly absurd. 

But on examining a little into the evidence of this 
trustworthy witness, it will be found that there are some 
very striking points of difference between his story and 
that of the Soobahdars. For instance, in his evidence 
before the Commission, he says,f “ about fifteen days before 
I was seized, the Purdesee’s Sepoys came, after the lights 
were lit, to the Dewan’s house.” Now, Cooshea was seized 
on the 7th of October, and fifteen days before this would have 
been the 22nd of September; but the Soobahdars declared the 
interview to have taken place on the 21st of July, the differ¬ 
ence in the two statements amounting to sixty-two days. 

He also says,f: “ The two Purdesees came a second 
time, ten days after , he cannot exactly state the date, but 
both interviews occurred within one month.” 

Now, by the statements of the Soobahdars, the second 
interview took place on the 8th of September, not ten, 
but forty-nine days after the first, whereas, according to 
Cooshea s version, it must have occurred about the 30th 
of September. 

Again, as has been before stated, Cooshea swears that no 
* Par. pa. 314. t Par. pa. 335. t Par. pa. 336. 


33 

person of consequence arrived at the Dewan’s house 
while the sepoys were there, contradicting therefore the 
assertions of the Soobahdars as to the arrival of Scindia’s 
Vakeel. 

It is also remarkable that Cooshea, who had been seven¬ 
teen or eighteen years in the service of the Dewan, states 
as follows :*■—“ I do not know any perfumer of the name 
of Furushram, and I never saw him that I know of.” Yet, 
Purushram’s shop was one of considerable note, and, as 
appears from the evidence,f was nearly opposite the 
Dewan’s house. The Commission omitted, however, to 
ask Purushram whether he had any acquaintance with 
Cooshea. 

Again, the two Soobahdars and their colleague Ilntajee 
swear that the Dewan was the only person present besides 
themselves at their second visit to his house. Cooshea, 
however, swore that he went to his own house during the 
time that the Soobahdars were at the Dewan’s house, pre¬ 
paratory to their alleged interview with the ex-Raja; though 
he subsequently! states, in direct contradiction to his 
former assertion, that he accompanied the other parties 
from the Dewan’s house to the Raja’s palace. 

Yet this was the witness § by whose evidence the Commis¬ 
sioners considered that of the Soobahdars to be providentially 
corroborated, and in whom they placed implicit confidence; 
but when, in addition to the above objections to his 
evidence, we find the Commissioners themselves || admitting 
that he had previously been found guilty of theft, and had 
likewise a motive for revenge against the Raja, the fact of 
their placing that confidence in him which they refused to 
an old, and previously to this charge, an admitted faithful 
ally of the British Government, is indeed astonishing. 
The conclusion from this, as indeed from the whole nature 
of the proceedings before the Commissioners, that they had 
determined on finding the Raja guilty, becomes irresistible. 

* Par. pa. 336 t Par. pa. 336. t Par. pa. 878. 

§ Par. pa. 312. || Par. pa. 314, 

D 


34 


Upon the evidence of these witnesses, in spite of the 
many discrepancies and contradictions which have been 
pointed out, the Commission did not hesitate to express 
their conviction of the Raja’s guilt, and an elaborate Report 
of their proceedings, embodying the whole of the evidence, 
but calling attention to but few of its defects, and giving 
far greater weight to the evidence against the Raja than 
either from its own nature, or the general character of the 
witnesses, it deserved, was prepared by Mr. Willoughby, 
and forwarded to the Bombay Government. This Report, 
however, though signed, as is usual in such cases, by all the 
members of the Commission, is not to be taken as a proof 
of their unanimity. General Lodwick, as appears from the 
following passage, taken from a letter written by him to 
the Court of Directors, dated the 13th June, 1842, did 
not coincide with his colleagues in their conviction of the 
Raja s guilt. He says, # 44 1 well recollect the discussions 
“ prior to Mr. Willoughby’s being requested to frame a 
“ sketch of our joint opinions : they were of such a nature 
“ as to occasion Mr. Willoughby to ask me, 4 Then what do 
“ you believe ?’ and my reply was, 4 To my perfect con vie - 
<c tion, nothing: still, as there is evidence on one side, im- 
44 perfect at it is, and none on the other, I must assent to 
44 certain points,’ or words to that effect. From my notes 
44 of the proceedings, I then pointed out numerous objec- 
44 tions to the evidence, the infamous character and prevari- 
44 cations of Untajee, the total failure of proof, or the shadow 
44 of proof, as to any plot or conspiracy of the Raja with 
44 other Powers, and that it was by no means conclusive as 
44 to the meeting given by the Raja to the native officers, 
“ whilst the details of it were utterly incredible to one who 
“ knew the Raja’s habits and feelings so well as 1 did,” &c. 
44 Mr. Willoughby, on the contrary, seemed perfectly satis- 
44 fled of the Raja’s guilt, and in the warmth of excitement, 

declared tnat he was a d-d scoundrel, and had been 

44 treacherous to that Power which had raised him from 

* Par. pa. 1320. 


35 


£t a prison to a throne. Colonel Ovans declared, that in 
44 considering the case, he should be guided by the prin- 
44 ciples of political expediency.” 

That General Lodwick, alive as he was lo the weakness 
of the case against the ex-Raja, should have affixed his 
signature to Mr. Willoughby’s Report, without at the same 
time entering a protest against the proceedings and the 
verdict of the Commission, is much to be regretted. Had 
the attention of the higher authorities been directed to the 
insufficiency of the evidence, and the unfair manner in which 
the investigation had been conducted, at an earlier period, 
and when the character of the Bombay Government was not 
so deeply committed as Sir Robert Grant afterwards declared 
it to be, the ex-Raja’s innocence might have been estab¬ 
lished, and the Bombay Government saved the commission 
of an act which must ever after be stigmatized as one of the 
greatest oppression and injustice. 

The proceedings of the Commission having come to a con¬ 
clusion, the Dewan and the Brahmin Untajee were removed 
to Poonah, to be there confined as state prisoners, pending 
instructions from the Government of India. Purushram was 
set at liberty, and Cooshea, the providential witness, but 
convicted felon, was dismissed with a reward ;* the native 
officers also, besides a promise of speedy promotion, re¬ 
ceived large presents.f 

While the measures of Government in this matter were 
under consideration, a petition to Government, dated the 
13th of December, 1836, was received in Bombay, by post, 
on the 6th of March, 1837, purporting to have come from 
Girjahbaee, the mother of the Dewan Govind Row, imput¬ 
ing various plots and conspiracies of a treasonable nature 
to the ex-Raja, confessing to the guilt of her son, as an agent 
under compulsion, and mentioning the names of twelve 
other persons as being in the confidence of the Raja, and 
employed by him as agents in his treasonable undertakings. 

Shortly after the receipt of this petition, the Bombay 


t Par. pa. 69. 


36 


Government removed Colonel Lodwick from his situation 
as Resident at Sattara, and appointed Colonel Ovans to 
succeed him in that office. The reason given for the 
removal of Colonel Lodwick, was that he had lost the 
Raja’s confidence, and he was told that the Governor in 
Council desired to ascertain “ whether some other officer 
placed near the Raja might not succeed in winning from 
His Highness that confidence which he had withdrawn, 
however unreasonably or ungratefully,”* from Colonel Lod¬ 
wick. That this, however, was not the true reason of the 
change of Residents is tolerably apparent from the first 
directions given to Colonel Ovans, who is required,f “in all 
his communications with the Raja, to be reserved and dis¬ 
tant.” But it is no difficult task to assign the true reason 
for the change made by the Bombay Government. Colo¬ 
nel Lodwick, as has already bean seen, was more disposed 
to look favourably on the Raja’s case, than his fellow com¬ 
missioners ; and his refusal to act in accordance with cer¬ 
tain hints of the Bombay Government,^ while it reflected 
honour on himself, shewed clearly to that Government that 
he would be useless as an agent in the accomplishment of 
their object—the ruin of the Raja. In a minute by Sir R. 
Grant, dated the 5th June, 1837, we find the following 
observations relative to the intended removal of Colonel 
Lodwick. 

“ It was resolved by the Board, nearly two months ago, 
that the state of affairs at Sattara demanded the superces¬ 
sion of the present Resident at that Court, by some indi¬ 
vidual more equal to the emergency. 

« A short time afterwards, that resolution was suspended 
at my request. Colonel Lodwick had requested an inter¬ 
view with me at the Hills, and I thought it possible that 
on that occasion I might be able to effect the object of 
Government, so far as respected the retirement of the 
Resident,more easily than through the channel of an official 
correspondence. 

“ In that expectation I was disappointed; and on the 
* Par. pa. 360. t Par. pa. 361. t Par. pa. 1309. 


contrary, from the tone of Colonel Lodwick’s observations, 
I was led to hope that he took ajuster view of the state of 
things at his residency than I had before conceived , and 
under proper advice might yet be found competent to deal 
with it.” 

Here the real objection to Colonel Lodwick peeps out: 
he was not sufficiently persuaded of the ex-Raja’s guilt; 
but it was hoped that his opinions were changing, and his 
removal was postponed. Sir R, Grant’s expectation was, 
however, again disappointed, and the supercession of Colo¬ 
nel Lodwick was finally resolved on. The decided views 
taken by Colonel Ovans against the Raja, and his admira¬ 
tion for the principles of political expediency, pointed him 
out as the most fit and proper person to trace out the con¬ 
spiracies in which the Raja was said to be engaged—and 
well did Colonel Ovans answer the expectations of those 
who appointed him. A system of espionage, or more 
properly, a political inquisition, was established at Sattara. 
Liberal rewards and indemnities, for evidence touching the 
Raja’s supposed intrigues, had been offered, on the receipt 
of Girjahbaee’s petition. To take one instance as an 
example—By a letter* from Captain Durack to Colonel 
Ovans, dated the 26th of September, 1837, it appears that 
he (Captain Durack) gave 150 rupees to one Bhow-Lely, 
by order of Colonel Ovans, and also gave him a paper 
promising a future reward, on his producing papers impli¬ 
cating the Raja in a treasonable conspiracy. This trans¬ 
action with Bhow-Lely is proved by a letter of Lieut. 
Horne,f and by a receipt^ for money received by Bhow- 
Lely, as part payment of the expenses he would incur in 
obtaining the required papers. Here we have a direct 
attempt to procure evidence against the Raja by means of 
a bribe. Other proceedings of a similar kind might be 
enumerated, but the case above mentioned is sufficient to 
test the value of the following affidavit^ of Colonel Ovans. 


* Par. pa. 641. 
t Ibid. 


t Par. pa. 643. 

§ Additional par. pa. 101. 


38 


“ Whereas, in a letter addressed to the Chairman of the 
Honourable the Court of Directors, by Major-General 
Lodvvick, dated London, June, 1842, and which, at a 
General Court of the East India Company, held on Mon¬ 
day, the 27th of June, 1842, was directed to be printed, 
I am accused of 44 purchasing evidence” against the ex- 
Raja of feattara, meaning thereby, as I understand these 
words, that I paid money to the witnesses, to induce them 
to give evidence against the ex-Raja. 

“ I, Charles Ovans, Lieutenant-Colonel of the Bombay 
Army, and Resident at Sattara, do hereby solemnly 
make oath and depose, that this accusation is utterly false* 
and that I never, directly or indirectly , purchased the evi¬ 
dence of any witness or witnesses whatever, against the ex- 
Raja of Sattara, as above set forth.” 

If the transaction with Bhow-Lely was not 44 pur¬ 
chasing evidence directly or indirectly,” it is difficult to 
understand the meaning of the words. 

It is true that Colonel Ovans interprets the words 44 pur¬ 
chasing evidence, as meaning 44 that he paid money to the 
witnesses to induce them to give evidence against the ex- 
Raja; and to that extent, so far as we know, his affidavit 
may be true : but it is at best a pitiful evasion. The 
transactions alluded to in the accusation against him were, 
as he must have known perfectly well, that with Bhow- 
Lely, and a subsequent one of a similar character with one 
Balkoba Kelkur, which will be hereafter alluded to ; and 
that the charge of purchasing evidence is not fully justified 
by those transactions, Colonel Ovans will find few to agree 
with him in asserting. 

This system continued to be acted upon ; evidence was 
procured in various ways; some gave it at once, others 
more unwillingly ; nor could any person, from what had 
occurred, fail to draw the inference, that to be a witness 
against the Raja was the sure road to the favour of the 
Bombay Government. Detentions were resorted to in 
cases where parties refused to give the evidence which it 


39 


was supposed they could furnish ; and after no very long 
time, the Resident summoned and imprisoned the Raja’s 
subjects and servants in his own capital, without His High¬ 
ness’s intervention. 

The first communication which reached Colonel Ovans 
from the Bombay Government, after his appointment at 
Sattara,* was accompanied by the above mentioned letter 
from Girjahbaee; and after remarking on the importance 
of its contents as connected with the alleged designs of the 
Raja against the British Government, and on the necessity 
of proving its authenticity, it authorized the Resident to 
promise a free pardon to any of the twelve persons men¬ 
tioned in the letter, on their making a full disclosure of the 
proceedings and designs of the Raja, and to hold out to 
Girjahbaee the hope of indulgence for her son on similar 
conditions. In consequence of this communication, we 
find Colonel Ovans, f on the 24th of June, 1837, recom¬ 
mending the removal of Govind Row, to Ahmednuggur, in 
the following terms : — 

k£ As it was no doubt under the impression that the re¬ 
lease of her son could only be accomplished by making the 
disclosures alluded to, that the letter (Girjahbaee's peti 
tion) if it be genuine, was written, it follows, that if his 
release by any other means appear possible, this statement 
will not be acknowledged. Considering, therefore, that the 
impression of Govind Row’s release is so generally and 
firmly credited here, I have refrained, at present, from 
having any direct communication with his mother ; but I 
am doing all in my power quietly to obtain information as 
to the writer of that letter, as also on other points con¬ 
nected with that affair. 

“ In order, however, to dispel the illusion as to Govind 
Row’s release, which threatens to throw such serious obsta¬ 
cles in the way of this important inquiry, I beg most 
respectfully to propose, that the Dewan be sent imme¬ 
diately, under guard, to Ahmednuggur, and placed in strict, 
* Par. pa. 361. + Par. pa. 369. 


40 


confinement there; that he only be attended by his own 
servant , and that all other intercourse with him be for the 
present prohibited. 

“It is to be hoped that this measure, if adopted, may 
serve to show that the rumours of Govind Row’s return 
are without foundation, and, this being felt, his mother and 
his other friends may be induced to come forward and dis¬ 
close all they know, as the only means of assisting him. 
But whatever may be the result, the effect of this step 
should certainly be tried without loss of time.” 

On the 1st of July, 1837, the Bombay Government in¬ 
formed* Colonel Ovans of their approval of his postpone¬ 
ment of the inquiry as to the authorship of the letter of 
Girjahbaee, and sanctioned the suggested removal of 
Govind Row, which was accordingly effected on the 5th 
of July, 1837. 

The next evening,! according to Colonel Ovans’s report, 
Girjahbaee, accompanied by two other persons, came to 
the Residency, to petition for her son ; and on allusion 
being made by Colonel Ovans to the letter, purporting to 
have been written by her, she replied that she did not 
know of any such letter , thouyh one might have been 
written; and on its contents being read, denied that she 
had written it, or that she was acquainted with the writer. 
Her companions also both denied all knowledge of the 
authorship of the letter. 

On a subsequent occasion, however, Girjahbaee being 
assured by Colonel Ovans thatj “ until all the circumstances 
connected with the petition were clearly understood, it 
would be impossible to take Govind Row’s situation into 
consideration,”—a statement was brought to the Resident 
by Sukharam Bulal,§ the uncle of Govind Row, and who 
was one of the persons who accompanied Girjahbaee on 
her first visit to the Resident, recanting his assertions of 
ignorance as to the writer of the letter in question, and 
stating that he himself had caused the petition to be written 

* Par. pa. 370. t Par. pa. 374. * Par. pa. 376. § Par. pa. 583. 


41 


by a person named Mahdow Fugeree, who had come as a 
visitor, and who then went off immediately to a distance, 
and that the letter was despatched by the Poonah dawk. 
Colonel Ovans requested to have in addition a statement* 
from Girjahbaee to the same effect, which was accordingly 
sent to him ; and a similar statementf was subsequently 
made by Madajee Gungadhur, the other companion of Gir¬ 
jahbaee. The statements of Sukharam Bulal and Gir¬ 
jahbaee were forwarded by Colonel Ovans to the Govern¬ 
ment of Bombay—he (Colonel Ovans) at the same time 
slating'J that the writer of the petition was “a Brahmin 
living in their own house.” On receipt of these statements, 
Colonel Ovans was directed to endeavour to procure the 
attendance of Mahdow Fugeree at Sattara for examination ; 
and Sukharam Bulal, being accordingly pressed by the 
Resident to produce this person, states § “that he was an 
Ormedoor, in quest of employment—that he went to some 
distant country, but where he went was not known, and that 
when he left the house, he said that he was going into Hin- 
dostan for employment, and that it was on this account that 
he was employed to write the petition for fear of the Ma~ 
haraj. On the *28th of July, the Government, at the recom¬ 
mendation of the Resident, that the Judge of Ahmednuggur 
be instructed to admit Sukharam Bulal to Govind Row, 
who Ballajee Punt Nattoo, in his evidence before the Com¬ 
mission says, “ is not a very wise man, and will do as he is 
bid,” H directs the Judge to admit accordingly any agent 
whom the Resident may depute ; and on the 4th of August, 
Colonel Ovans reportsf that Sukharam Bulal left Sattara 
the day before, to visit his nephew Govind Row. The Re¬ 
sident at the same time states that he has received a peti¬ 
tion from Girjahbaee, requesting that her son, Govind 
Row, may be released from the gaol at Ahmednuggur, and 
allowed to occupy quarters in the town : and he suggests 
that this step “ should not he taken until the arrival of Suk- 

* Par. pa. 583. + Par. pa. 620. $ Par. pa. 377. 

$ Par. pa. 620. || Par. pa. 377. IT Par. pa. 383. 


42 


haram JBulal at Ahmednuggur , and that he should he con¬ 
sulted as to the proper time for granting the indulgence ,” and 
corresponding instructions were # accordingly issued to the 
Judge of Ahmednuggur on the 16th of August, and the 
result was, that on the 24th of August the following letterf 
was received by the chief Secretary to Government from 
the Judge of Ahmednuggur. ce Sir, I have the honour to 
acknowledge the receipt of your letter dated the 28th ult., 
and to inform you, that by desire of the acting Resident at 
Sattara, Sukharam Bulal, uncle to Govind Row, the state 
prisoner now in my charge, has for many days had free 
access to his nephew ; and that I have also, at Sukharam’s 
solicitation, permitted his (Govind Row’s) younger brother 
to accompany him in their visits. Their object has been to 
induce him to disclose what he hnew regarding the late pro¬ 
ceedings of the Sattara Court , in which they have been suc¬ 
cessful. 

(C I had an interview this morning with Govind Row, at 
which, after explaining the circumstances under which he 
was, as he describes it, reluctantly led to take part in them, 
he presented me with the enclosed, written, as he assures 
me, with his own hand, and which I had previously given 
him the means of preparing. 

“ The interview the Raja and himself herein described 
as having had with the Soobahdars, took place, he says, in 
Shrawun Vud, between the 27th of August and the 11th of 
September, 1836, but the exact date he does not remember. 

“ Every attention has been paid to Govind Row’s comfort 
since he came here. He now r seems willing to communi¬ 
cate all he knows, and I have no doubt of being able to 
obtain from him any information the Government may 
desire.” 

Enclosed in the above was the following confession of 
Govind Row:— 

Confession. 

46 1 made the following representation, that the cireum- 
* Par. pa. 384. t Par. pa. 618. 


43 


stances (therein contained) may become known to the (Bri¬ 
tish) Government, that Untajee Wagh did bring the two 
Soobahdars of the Pultun (Native Regiment) to me. They 
were once taken to the Maharaj (the Raja of Sattara), and 
the Maharaj taking them privately aside, did speak to the 
Soobahdars about (forming) friendship and other matters. 
These communications they (the Soobahdars) have also al¬ 
ready revealed to the Sahib (the Resident or the Commis¬ 
sion). The reason for my not at first representing these 
proceedings to (the British Government) was, that it was 
my wish to preserve the friendship between the Maharaj’s 
Government (Raja of Sattara) and the Company’s Govern¬ 
ment inviolate, and no obstruction should happen to it, for 
this reason I did not make any intimation. When I may 
have a meeting with the Resident, Ovans Sahib (Lieut. - 
Colonel Ovans), then I will make a detailed statement of 
the whole of these matters. I am (was) a servant. It now 
rests with the Company’s Government in every way, kindly 
to save me,” (meaning to protect him from the Raja’s ven¬ 
geance.) 

In accordance with the promise contained in this confes¬ 
sion, we find that Govind Row, on the 11th of September, 
1837, made* a full confession of his connexion with the 
Brahmin and the Soobahdars, and of the particulars of the 
introduction of the latter to the Raja. His statement, how¬ 
ever, differs materially from that of the Soobahdars, both as 
to the place at which the alleged interview with the ex-Raja 
occurred, and as to the conversation which took place ; but 
even were that not the case, had his confession corroborated 
the evidence of the Soobahdars in every point, that confes¬ 
sion would still have been utterly worthless as evidence 
against the Raja. Consider the circumstances under which 
it was obtained, or rather, extorted. On his first examina¬ 
tion, he positively denies all knowledge of any plot; his 
statement, the Commission having determined that a trea¬ 
sonable conspiracy did exist, was of course in their opinion 
* Par. pa. 871. 


44 


false. He is then sent to a distant prison, where he is kept 
in solitary confinement, all access to him having been denied, 
except to the agents of Colonel Ovans, with the prospect of 
a long and tedious imprisonment before him, and an entire 
separation from his family and friends; after nearly 10 
months imprisonment, weakened in mind and body, and 
believing his life to be in danger, he is told that the term 
of his captivity depends on himself, that his liberty will be 
restored on one condition, viz. his confessing his own and 
the Raja’s participation in the alleged treasonable conspi¬ 
racy. Under such a pressure, is it surprising that his ho¬ 
nesty gave way—assured no doubt by Sukharam Bulal, that 
the ruin of his master was already effected, and that his own 
confession was only a necessary prelude to his liberation, 
can it be wondered at, that after being urged day by day, 
he at length made the required statement ? The error he 
committed in so doing was at least excusable;—the means 
exerted by Colonel Ovans to attain his object were such 
as not all his love for political expediency can justify or 
excuse. 

The confession of Govind Row, worthless as it was against 
the Raja, has since, as we shall presently see, been recanted 
in the most unqualified manner by the Dewan himself. 

To return to the letter alleged to have come from Gir- 
jahbaee.—We have already seen what were the statements 
originally made as to the authorship of this document; but 
as it afterwards appeared that those statements were devoid 
of truth, and as there are good grounds for doubting the 
genuineness of the document itself, it may be as well to 
notice here the accounts subsequently given respecting it. 
On the 1st of May, 1838, we find* Sukharam Bulal, in 
answer to questions put to him by Colonel Ovans, again con¬ 
tradicting himself on the subject of the letter, and stating 
that the writer was a person named Krushnajee Sudasew 
Bhidey, a Brahmin of Punderpoor, who wrote it at the in¬ 
stigation of Lukshumun Punt Bhugwunt, and that it was 
not posted at Poonah, but at Punderpoor; yet this was the 
* Par. pa. 1032. 


45 


man who was sent by Colonel Ovans to Ahmednuggur, to 
extort by promises of liberation and pardon, or threats of 
continued imprisonment, a confession which might confirm 
the false statement he had himself made, and be used as evi¬ 
dence against the ex-Raja. 

On the 7th of September, 1837, # Krushnajee Sudasew 
Bhidey stated to Colonel Ovans, that he wrote the petition 
at the desire of Lukshumun Punt Bhugwunt, and with the 
cognizance of Wittul Punt Anna, and that when people 
were apprehended, in consequence of the petition being sent 
to Government, he was to receive 1000 rupees, though he 
insisted on having 1200. He does not mention the name of 
Sukharam Bulat in his statement .—This statement of Krush¬ 
najee Sudasew Bhidey was made, it must be remembered, 
at a time when every temptation was thrown in the way of 
parties to come forward and give evidence against the 
ex-Ilaja. The same person has, however, made a subsequent 
statement on oath, for which no possible motive can be as¬ 
signed, except remorse for bis former falsehood, and a desire 
to atone, as far as lay in his power, for the injury he had 
done the ex-Raja. Colonel Ovans himself would hardly 
venture now to suggest the unbounded wealth and power 
of the deposed Prince as the cause of the affidavit, from 
which the following is an extract, having been made by 
Krushnajee Sudasew Bhidey. 

“ I funher make oath, and declare that the said Ballajee 
“ Punt Nattoo made the deposal of the late Raja subser- 
“ vient to the aggrandizement of himself and his creatures, 
“ and that he (Ballajee) had promised me, in connection 
44 with the affair of Girjahbaee, the sum of 250 rupees, 
“ and that out of this sum Ballajee Punt Nattoo paid me 
<« only 150 rupees, through the Resident , Colonel Ovans , 
“ and that, after availing himself of my services, he now re- 
<< fuses paying me the remainder of the promised sum. 

The above affidavit was sworn on the 13th December, 
1843, before Henry Collins, a Public Notary at Bombay, 

* Par. pa. 1028. 


46 


and was forwarded to the Governor of Bombay, and subse¬ 
quently to the Court of Directors. 

The following is a translation of a letter from Girjahbaee 
herself, dated the 11th June, 1838:— 

“ I know not of my son, Govind Row, upon what reason 
he has been imprisoned, or the circumstances; neither did 
I say any word about, nor give petition on the subject, but 
know not whether any person would have written on my 
part through enmity, like other vicious people who hire 
other people to preserve their cause. Such a thing I shall 
never do; and for my case, if his Majesty is not satisfied, 
I shall, with my two sons, Wamun and # Mahadevee, take an 
oath on Gunga (water of the Ganges.) I am a poor woman, 
what should I say more? His Majesty is well acquainted 
with my conduct; but at fabrication cannot help—(that I 
am incapable of fabrication.) 

(Signed) “Wamun Row Wittul, for his 
“ Mother, Girjahbaee Mahajune.” 

Govind Row also writes in the following terms to the 
ex-Raja, on the 27th November, 1841 : — 

“ I have received a letter from the Vakeel in London, 
requiring me to state whether the story of my mother, 
Girjahbaee, is true or false. I have sent an answer under 
date the 19th of this month, stating that Girjahbaee never 
made the depositions attributed to her, and that the deposi¬ 
tion which I made is also as false as that stated to have heen 
made by her. I have, however, received your Highness’s 
orders to report, after questioning my mother whether the 
story of her petition is true or false. 

“ Agreeably to your commands, I have questioned my 
mother, who denies all concern in that transaction. Hin¬ 
doo women, moreover, never interfere in matters of state. 
The petition stated to have been made by my mother, is 
entirely fabricated. 1 have further inquired as to the origin 
of the petition. It is the result of the intrigues of two 
Konkanee Brahmins of Punderpoor, and some enemies of 


47 


mine in Sattara; and the two fabricators of this false peti¬ 
tion have been pensioned by Government through the 
agency of Ballajee Punt Nattoo. 

‘‘ This affair of the petition requires to be investigated. 
My mother has made no deposition before the Resident or 
any one else; as to the deposition which I made at Ahmed- 
nuggur, I made it when suffering great hardship, and when 
ready to die, and persuaded that justice could not be got. 
Then it was that I wrote what Mr. Hutt told me ; but my 
evidence, and that of my mother, are both false. 

(Signed) “ Govind Row.” 

And on the 8th of January, 1842, Govind Row declares 
solemnly as follows :— 

“ I do hereby solemnly declare that my mother, Gir- 
jahbaee did not prefer an uzzee or application to the Resi¬ 
dent, or to the Government; but that it was given by Bal¬ 
lajee Punt Nattoo through a Karkoon, in the name of my 
mother; and the said Karkoon now enjoys a pension under 
Ballajee Punt’s administration in Sattara. That the de¬ 
positions which I gave were exacted from me while I was 
imprisoned in a dark dungeon at Ahmednuggur: that con¬ 
sidering there was no justice with Government, and that if 
I did not adhere to what the Sirkar (British Government) 
wished me to do, I would lose my life, I was therefore forced, 
in order to preserve my life, to give my statements in writ¬ 
ing, according to the instructions of Mr. Hutt.—I do now 
state that it is entirely false, and extortion. 

(Signed) Govind Row Wittul Nisbut.” 
Witnesses , Narragen Row Wittul. 

Rowjee Ramchunder.” 

And the following is a translation of a letter from Govind 
Row to Rungo Bapojee, the Vakeel of his Highness the 
ex-Raja, upon the same subject:— 

“ Maholi (near Sattara ) March, 3 d, 1843. 

“ I have received your letter to me from London, dated 
the 30th November, 1842. 


48 

“ With reference to what has been stated, that my re¬ 
spected mother, Girjahbaee, went at night to the house 
of the Resident, (Colonel Ovans) I have to observe that 
the statement is utterly untrue. When I was imprisoned at 
Ahmednuggur, and it was reported I was to be removed to 
a greater distance, the report reached my mother, who, 
being alarmed for my safety, obtained his Highness’s per¬ 
mission to go to the Resident in company with a Karkoon; 
she waited on that functionary in the day-time, between the 
hours of 11 and 12. This was for the sole purpose of beg¬ 
ging that the Resident would not allow her son (myself) to 
be removed from Ahmednuggur. This was the only time 
that my mother ever saw him, and the only thing she ever 
said. She never saw him before nor after, at any time, by 
night or by day. With respeot to the uzzee (petition) she 
most distinctly declares that she never gave, never autho¬ 
rized to be written or given in any manner, such a docu- 
me nt—explain this there (to the authorities in England.) 

I have formerly given a statement of the sufferings to which 
I was subjected whilst in prison. 

(Signed) “ Govind Row Wittul.” 

If these persons are entitled to any credit at all, there is 
every reason for believing that these, their final statements, 
are correct representations of the facts. I hey could have 
had no interested motive in making them. In the ex-Raja s 
helpless situation, they had nothing to expect from his fa¬ 
vour, while on the other hand, the example of the Soobah- 
dars and Cooshea, shewed clearly that a perseverance in 
their testimony against the ex-Raja, was a sure passport to 
the favour and protection of Colonel Ovans and his superiors. 

The only remaining evidence which has been produced 
relative to this charge since the conclusion of the proceed¬ 
ings of the Sattara Commission, is that given by Abba 
Mahreek, Abba Parusnees, Kassee Punt Bundry, Yellojee 
Mohitey, and Abba Mohitey. 

The first of these witnesses states* in his examination on 


* Par. pa. 581. 


49 


the 12th of July, 1837 : that he came to Sattara/o^r years 
ago: that at that time numerous people used always to 
come to Govind Row, among whom he twice or thrice saw 
two or three Purdesees who had come there, belonging to 
the Sahib. Now the alleged meetings between the Soobah- 
dars and the Dewan took place, as we have seen, only a 
year previously to the examination of this witness. Abba 
Mahreek also gives an entirely different account of the con¬ 
versation said to have taken place on his entering the room, 
from that related by the Soobahdars. He also says :*— 
tfi After Govind Row had been arrested, the Maharaj sent 
me a message, through Dinkur Rao Mohitey (stating) :— 
f£ Now you should not shew yourself anywhere in public 
whereas on referring to the evidence given by Dinkur Rao 
Mohitey,f we find this person solemnly swearing that he 
did not deliver such a message to Abba Mahreek ; and 
when that person’s statement is read to him, declaring he 
did not say anything of the kind; yet Colonel Ovans, with 
the same spirit of partiality and unfairness which character¬ 
izes the whole of the proceedings against the ex-Raja, omits 
altogether to notice this contradiction. The statement of 
Dinkur Rao, a witness of the highest respectability, is, of 
course, disbelieved, as tending to disprove the truth of the 
charges brought against the ex-Raja. That of Abba Mah¬ 
reek—the effect of it being apparently to corroborate the 
story of the Soobahdars—meets with implicit credit. 

The witnesses, Abba Parusnees, Kassee Punt Bundrey, 
and Yellojee Mohitey state,f that they heard Abba Mo¬ 
hitey say that he saw the sentries go to the Raja with Go¬ 
vind Row, and that in his sight they went up stairs. 

The mere mention in the report of Colonel Ovans of 
hearsay statements such as these affords further proof, if 
that were necessary, of the anxiety exhibited by that officer 
to record everything that could in the slightest degree tell 
against the Raja; yet. worthless as evidence as these state¬ 
ments would be, even if true, it may be of service to the 

* Par. pa. 582. t Par. pa. 868. * Par. pa. 607, 608. 

E 


50 


case of the ex-Raja, as affording another instance of the 
general character of the evidence against him, to point out 
how essentially they differ from each other. 

Thus Abba Parusnees, and Kassee Punt Bundrey de¬ 
clare/' 1 ' that the conversation with Abba Mohitey took place 
on the day Govind Row was seized , and that it occurred on 
the afternoon of that day.—Yellojee Mohitey on the con¬ 
trary says,f that the conversation took place in the evening 
at about a month after the seizure of Govind Row. —This 
contradiction is apparently immaterial in the opinion of 
Colonel Ovans, and the three witnesses are represented in 
his statement* as having told precisely the same story. 

It should be observed here, that there are other reasons 
for discrediting the testimony of two at least of these three 
witnesses. By the evidence of Abbajee Narain Josee,§ it 
appears that Abba Parusnees had been employed on the du¬ 
ties of the Adawlut: and having been found guilty of re¬ 
ceiving bribes, was dismissed. Yellojee Mohitey had been 
formerly exposed by the ex-Raja to Captain Grant Duff as 
an intriguer, and had in vain solicited his Highness's as¬ 
sistance, in a nefarious attempt to obtain possession of his 
mother’s property. 

Again, Abba Mohitey himself, in the first instance, de- 
nied|| all knowledge of the alleged conversation ; and it was 
not until he found himself denounced by Yellojee Mohitey, 
that Abba Mohitey was induced to admit that it took place ; 
and on being interrogated as to the occasion on which he 
saw the Soobahdars taken to the Raja by Govind Row, he 
states as follows,^!—“ One night 1 went into the Sirkar 
wara (the Raja’s palace) to sleep. Then in the early part 
of the night, when about one ghurra and a quarter was past 
(half-past one o’clock), and before the gun was fired, Go¬ 
vind Row Dewan, taking two sentries of the English pul- 
tan (English regiment), went through the verandah of the 
throne to where the throne is placed up stairs; this I saw 

* Par. pa. 607, 608. t Par. pa. 608. $ Par. pa. 1064. 

$ Par. pa. 634. || Letter of Col. Ovans, p. 38D. f Par. pa. 608. 


51 


with my own eyes: afterwards Govind Row was seized.” 
It is hardly necessary to point out the discrepancy which 
occurs between this story and that of the Soobahdars, who 
state,* that it was about nine o'clock when they were taken 
to the Raja’s palace, and that they returned to the lines by 
ten o’clock; and yet it seems to have escaped Colonel 
Ovans’s observation, or at all events, he has not thought 
it necessary to call attention to it. 

The readiness with which the Bombay Government gave 
credit to the evidence produced in support of the alleged 
attempt to seduce the Sepoys, and the measures adopted 
by them with regard to the different persons engaged in the 
affair, the rewards heaped upon the native officers and 
Cooshea, and the harsh treatment and strict imprisonment 
allotted to the Dewan, produced such fruits as might have 
been expected. Information of various plots, including a 
multitude of small States, was received, but of these none 
were apparently considered worth pursuing, except certain 
alleged intrigues with the ex-Raja of Nagpoor, then a pri¬ 
soner at Joudpoor, and with the Viceroy of Goa. The 
former of these charges, as the least important of the two, 
will be first considered ; and it must be remembered, that 
until the publication by Parliament of the papers relating 
to his case, the ex-Raja had never received the slightest 
intimation of the evidence by which these alleged intrigues 
were supposed to be proved, or even of the fact, that he 
was suspected of having participated in them. 

The substance of the Nagpoor charge was, that the ex- 
Raj a had maintained for upwards of nine years a treason¬ 
able correspondence with the ex-Raja of Nagpoor, then a 
prisoner at Joudpoor, for the purpose of inducing him to 
join in a conspiracy to overthrow the British Government 
in India. 

The first mention of this affair appears in the evidence 
of Ballajee Punt Nattoo, the apparent friend, but in truth 
the secret enemy of the ex-Raja, before the Commission at 
* Par. pa. 327. 

E 2 


52 


Sattara. This person states*—“ Within the last 12 months 
it has come to my knowledge, that his Highness has en¬ 
tered into communications with Moodhojee Bhonsleh, the 
ex-Raja of Nagpore, now at Joudpore, with Hyderabad, 
with Odeypore, and I have heard, with Nagpore. He 
likewise communicates frequently with Goa. His object 
appears to be to enlarge his dominions, and to expel the 
English, and to raise disturbances:”—and afterwards, ‘‘The 
Raja’s own brother, Appa Sahib, informed me yesterday, 
that three days ago his Highness burnt a letter he had 
received from Moodhojee Bhonsleh: this letter, and ano¬ 
ther to Balia Sahib Senaputtee, were brought by Sewan- 
und Shastree, who was deputed twice to Joudpore under 
similar pretexts.” 

This statement, though not implicitly believed by 
the Commissioners, as proceeding from Appa Sahib, who, 
though he was the ex-Baja’s brother, was known to be his 
bitter enemy, afforded them a foundation for a fresh charge 
—and regardless of the absurdity and extravagance of sup¬ 
posing that a man, without power or funds, a prisoner and 
a beggar, would have been the person first selected to co¬ 
operate in a conspiracy against the British powers, the 
Bombay Government pounced with avidity on the new 
materials produced to them. Colonel Ovans gave fresh 
examples of his address and activity in obtaining the 
necessary evidence by promises of pardon and protection ; 
and Sir Robert Grant again exerted his ingenuity in manu¬ 
facturing a formidable conspiracy out of the trumpery and 
contradictory statements of witnesses of more than doubtful 
character, and who were moreover known to be hostile to 
the person they accused. 

The alleged facts on which this charge is founded, so far 
as they can be collected from the contradictory statements 
of the different witnesses, are shortly as follows: 

Yellojee Mohitey, the brother-in-law of Appa Sahib 
Bhonsleh, ex-Raja of Nagpoor, and brother of Dinkur 
* Par. pa. 341. 


53 


Rao Mohitey, an officer high in the service of the ex-Raja 
of Sattara, had for some years kept up a correspondence 
with the Bhonsleh, partly complimentary, and partly hav¬ 
ing reference to certain family disputes in the Mohitey 
family, in which Yellojee was desirous of obtaining the 
Bhonsleh’s intercession with the ex-Raja. 

His Highness is represented as having availed himself of 
this correspondence, in order to persuade the Bhonsleh to 
embark in the schemes against the British power, in which 
he was himself alleged to have been engaged: and it is 
said, that about the month of January, 1832, on seeing 
certain letters which had been brought from the Bhonsleh 
to the Mohitey family, by the hands of one Seevam, the 
ex-Raja desired Yellojee to send his own servant with 
Seevam on his return to Joudpore, in order to ascertain 
whether the Bhonsleh had really written them ; and that 
Yellojee accordingly sent a servant of his, named Kedaree 
Mania, with Seevam to Joudpore. 

It is further stated, that about January, 1833, Kedaree 
returned, accompanied by a servant of the Bhonsleh, named 
Bhudia, who brought from the Bhonsleh letters from the 
ex-Raja, for the Seenaputtee, an officer of his Highness, 
and for the Mohitey family, but which contained nothing 
treasonable—and that about August, 1833, Bhudia left 
Sattara on his return to Joudpore, accompanied by Wittoo 
Patrykur, another servant of Yellojee Mohitey. On this 
occasion, Bhudia is stated by Yellojee to have been en¬ 
trusted with a message from the ex-Raja, desiring the 
Bhonsleh to make preparations to join him in a war against 
the English. 

About August, 1834, Wittoo Patrykur, is said to have 
returned to Sattara, accompanied by a domestic of the 
Bhonsleh, entitled by the witnesses the Borneykur, who is 
represented to have delivered to the ex-Raja a sealed letter 
from his master touching the dispute in the Mohitey 
family, enclosing a note in the handwriting of the Bhonsleh, 
dissuading the Raja from going to war. 


54 


About November, 1835, Yellojee is said to have de¬ 
spatched Wittoo and Kedaree to Joudpore, accompanied 
by a Karkoon named Krishnarao Dagumber, the latter 
being charged with a verbal message, stating that until the 
appointed time, two years or two years and a-half still 
remained, and desiring the Bhonsleh to collect troops, 
which would also be done by the ex-Raj a. 

After remaining at Joudpore for three or four months, 
and having had an interview with the Bhonsleh, Wittoo and 
Kedaree are stated to have returned to Sattara in August, 
1836, bringing with them a messenger from the Bhonsleh, 
named Bhikoo. They also brought a letter for the ex- 
Raja, containing, according to Yellojee, a note in the 
handwriting of the Bhonsleh, dissuading his Highness, as 
in the former instance, from going to war. Kedaree also 
states that he was entrusted with a message from the ex- 
Raja, which he delivered; but this is contradicted by Yel¬ 
lojee. Bhikoo is also represented to have brought presents 
of shoes for his Highness. 

About a month after the arrival of these three persons 
at Sattara, Govind Row Dewan was seized and conveyed to 
Poona, and in consequence of the alarm occasioned by this 
event, Yellojee states, that by the desire of the ex-Raja, 
he burnt all the letters which he had received from the 
Bhonsleh, and destroyed the shoes which had been brought 
by Bhikoo. Bhikoo was sent for concealment to the village 
of Goway, near Sattara, and Wittoo and Kedaree were 
sent off to Nagpore, but were afterwards brought back on 
the requisition of the Resident. 

Such are the alleged communications of the ex-Raj a 
with the Bhonsleh, through the medium of Yellojee Mo- 
hitey. His Highness is also represented to have employed 
other parties for a similar purpose. 

Some time in 1834, he is stated to have expressed to 
Abba Mahreek (the person who it will be remembered, is 
said to have been present at one of the alleged interviews 
between Govind Row and the Soobahdars), a wish to know 


65 


through some independent channel, whether the statements 
made by Yellojee and his servants, as to the communica¬ 
tions with Joudpore, were true or otherwise. Abba Mahreek 
on receiving this intimation, is represented to have sent a 
servant named Wittoo Bogania, to Joudpore, who, having 
received assurances from the Bhonsleh, as to the truth of 
Yellojee, returned to Sattara in March, 1835, accompanied 
by Hurry, a person in the service of the Bhonsleh. 

This Hurry is stated to have delivered a complimentary 
letter from the Bhonsleh to the ex-Raja, and after the 
lapse of two months, to have returned to Joudpore, charged 
with a message from his Highness to the following effect: 
“ The Roos (Russians) are coming by way of Roum (Con¬ 
stantinople), and if Appa Sahib (the Bhonsleh) has any 
interest with the Romewalla (the Turk), let him exert it to 
procure from the Romewalla a free passage, for which pur¬ 
pose he may also mention our name.” 

Having received through Dinkur Rao a hundred rupees 
for his expenses, Hurry is stated to have returned to Joud ¬ 
pore, accompanied by two persons on the part of Abba 
Mahreek, Purshotum a Karkoon, and Hybuttee a slave, 
and also by Bhabjee Mhyput Rao, a friend of Purshotum 
—they are said to have taken with them, concealed in a 
verna or musical instrument, a sword which had belonged 
to the ancestors of the Bhonsleh, and which had been 
bought by Abba Mahreek. 

It is also said, that previous to their departure, Pursho¬ 
tum was privately desired by Govind Rao Dewan to procure 
from the Bhonsleh an advance of 20 or 25 lacs of rupees, 
in order to enable the Goa troops to capture Nagpore, and 
replace the Bhonsleh on his lost gadie. 

The party are said to have arrived at Joudpore, and to 
have presented the sword to the Bhonsleh, with whom they 
had frequent interviews ; and in July they are represented 
to have left Joudpore, with the exception of Hurry, for the 
encampment of Scindia at Gwalior, having received pre¬ 
sents of clothes, money, and a mare. On their way, having 


56 


heard of the arrest of Govind Row, they separated and 
concealed themselves. 

The evidence adduced in support of the above alleged 
facts is partly oral and partly documentary. 

The following are the names of the witnesses examined:— 


9. Bhabjee Myhputrao. 

10. Hybuttee Palkur. 

11. Purshotum Annunt. 

12. Ragho Punt Datsakul. 

13. Abba Parusnees. 

14. Kasee PuntBundrey. 

15. Dinkur Rao Mohitey. 

16. Govind Row Dewan. 


1. Yellojee Mohitey. 

2. Appajee Jadoo. 

3. Wittoo Bogania. 

4. Wittoo Patrykur. 

5. Kedaree Mania. 

6. Dhonda Katia. 

7. Abba Mahreek. 

8. Krushnajee Chintamun 

Agasey. 

Of these persons, some have already been described; as 
to those who have not been previously mentioned, Appajee 
Jadoo was a domestic in the service of Yellojee Mohitey 
when the communications with Joudpore were in progress. 

Dhonda Katia was the person in whose house Bhikoo, 
the messenger of Appa Sahib, was concealed. 

Krushnajee Chintamun Agasey was an inhabitant of 
Tarala, a village of the Mahreeks, where he obtained the 
information regarding Purshotum’s mission, detailed in his 
deposition. 

Ragho Punt Datsakul was an agent employed to collect 
pilgrims for Gya. He was mentioned in the letters to the 
ex-Raja and the Seenaputtee, which form part of the docu¬ 
mentary evidence relating to this affair. 

The documentary evidence consists of four letters from 
the Bhonsleh, addressed as follows:—One to the Raja of 
Sattara; one to Yellojee Mohitey; one to the mother of 
Yellojee Mohitey, and one to the Seenaputtee. 

There was also a letter found among the papers of Ragho 
Punt Datsakul, purporting to be an original letter from 
Appa Sahib to a servant of his named Poonjajee Sindeh. 

With regard to the witness Yellojee Mohitey, it has 
already been observed that he had been formerly denounced 




57 


by the ex-Raja to Captain Grant, when Resident at Sat- 
tara, as an intriguer, and that he had likewise a motive for 
revenge against his Highness, in the opposition which had 
been made to his attempt to possess himself of the property 
of his mother and brother. This hostility is admitted to 
have existed by Sir Robert Grant, yet he actually pro¬ 
fesses* to consider Yellojee Mohitey, and his connexions, 
and servants, as influenced in their evidence by a desire to 
benefit the ex-Raja. 

It is also observable, that Abba Mahreek, the other 
principal witness in this affair, was connected by marriage 
with Yellojee Mohitey, and both he and Yellojee Mohitey, 
as well as the two servants, Wittoo and Kedaree, were pro¬ 
mised a free pardon, provided they made a full disclosure 
of all they knew of the supposed treason. 

Out of the remaining fourteen witnesses seven were 
servants of these two persons; of the remaining seven, 
Krishnajee Chintamun Agasey, Purshotum, Ragho Punt 
Datsakul, and Kassee Punt Bundrey were Brahmins, a 
caste, as ready stated, known to be hostile to the ex-Raja. 
The credibility of Abba Parusnees and Kassee Punt Bun¬ 
drey has already been shewn to be at least questionable, 
and the confession of Govind Row, under the circum¬ 
stances of coercion through which it was obtained, to be 
altogether worthless. 

These facts, well known as they were to Colonel Ovans, 
coupled with the extreme improbability of the whole affair, 
might naturally have been expected to excite some sus¬ 
picion in his mind as to the truth of the story. No such feel¬ 
ing seems however to have been entertained, and the alleged 
conspiracy, with all its wild and incredible details, was 
implicitly believed. 

It will at least be supposed, that to induce Colonel Ovans 
and the Bombay Government to believe the ex-Raja capa¬ 
ble of embarking in an undertaking so monstrously absurd 
as the alleged conspiracy with the ex-Raja of Nagpore, a 
* Par. pa. 188. 


58 


prisoner and a beggar, the story must have been well and 
naturally told by the different witnesses; that there were 
no contradictions or discrepancies in their evidence: or 
that if there were any, they were such as not materially to 
affect the credibility of the witnesses or the probability of 
their tale. A very slight examination of the evidence how¬ 
ever, will shew, that far from this being the case, the wit¬ 
nesses, with hardly a single exception, contradict themselves 
and each other over and over again ; many of their state¬ 
ments, and of those in particular it should be observed, 
which implicate the ex-Raja, are founded on hearsay only; 
and it seems to have been only by means of repeated ex¬ 
aminations, and, in some instances, it may almost be said, 
suggestions, on the part of their examiner, that anything 
like a connected or consistent story was elicited. Colonel 
Ovans himself observes,* with regard to the examinations 
of Yellojee Mohitey, and his two servants, Kedaree and 
Wittoo, “ The difficulty that has been experienced in ex¬ 
tracting the truth will be evident from the several dates of 
these examinations ; but I have every reason to believe, 
that the final answers, as recorded in those depositions, con¬ 
tain a true account of these secret communications.” Why 
it should be assumed that the truth was after all extracted, 
or why Colonel Ovans refrains from recording his reasons 
for believing the final answers of the witnesses, it is not 
easy to perceive. The natural inclination of most minds, 
on reading the numerous discrepancies which occur in the 
depositions of Yellojee and his two servants, and which 
were in no instance corrected till the attention of the wit¬ 
ness was particularly called to them, would be to disbelieve 
the story altogether. 

The first witness examined by Colonel Ovans upon this 
affair was Krishnajee Chintamun Agasey,f who states that 
messengers were in the habit of going from Abba Mahreek 
to Joudpore : and that on one occasion, Purshotum, accom¬ 
panied by Bhabjee Mhyput Rao and a Sepoy, went, taking 
* Par. pa. 3/9. | Par. pa. 584. 


59 


with them a sword in a verna, as a present, and that they 
afterwards returned to Sattara, bringing with them two 
mares, a large and a small one. He also states, that the 
maker of the verna, in which the sword was contained, was, 
at the time of his examination, in Sattara; that he was 
ignorant of his name, but would ascertain it from Pursho- 
tum’s party. 

The evidence of this person is only of importance as cor¬ 
roborating the story told by Purshotum and his party, and 
the greater part, if not the whole of it, being merely the 
substance of what he had heard, it is not of much avail 
even for that purpose. It may, however, be desirable to 
point out a striking difference between his story and that 
of Purshotum and his companions ; the present witness 
stating that two mares were brought back to Sattara from 
Joudpore, Purshotum and his fellow-messengers saying 
that they only brought one. 

The statements of Purshotum and the two persons who 
are stated to have accompanied him to Joudpore from Sat¬ 
tara, are by no means consistent with each other. Thus, 
with regard to the presentation of the sword with which 
they were entrusted to Appa Sahib, we find Bhabjee 
Mhyput Rao stating as follows :*■— fic Two or three days 
after our arrival at Joudpore, the sword in the verna was 
taken out, and sent to Appa Sahib by a Purdesee belong¬ 
ing to him, of whose name I am ignorant.” Hybuttee 
Palkur, however, says,f “ Afterwards, on the third day, 
we all had an interview with Appa Sahib, and having taken 
out the sword from the verna at our quarters, we gave it to 
Appa Sahib at the very first meetingwhile Purshotum 
himself swears, J first, “on our arrival at Joudpore we paid 
a visit to Appa Sahib, and on our return to our quarters, 
sent the verna by Appa Sahib’s hoozria, who had come ; 
the sword was not taken out in our presence. Subse¬ 
quently he says,§ “ The verna delivered to Appa Sahib at 
Joudpore was given by the Rao Sahib, and a sword was in 

* Par. pa. 585. t Par. pa. 586. t Par. pa. 589. $ Par. pa. 590. 


60 


it: so telling him we gave it.” And lastly,* “ When Appa 
Sahib’s man came to take the verna, there in his presence, 
pulling out a wooden strip from the verna, the sword in it 
was seen; then refixing the strip, the verna, together with 
the sword, was made over to him.” 

Again, Bhabjee Mhyput Rao, on being interrogated as 
to the place at which they first heard of the seizure of Go- 
vind Row, states as follows,f— “ We heard at Gwalior, 
the Maharaja’s name, as having been apprehended, after¬ 
wards by the mouth of a traveller who went from hence : 
we heard with certainty in the camp (i. e. at Gwalior) of 
Govind Row’s apprehension.” Hybuttee Palkur, how¬ 
ever, says,%—“ We heard in Scindia’s camp that some were 
apprehended at Sattara: we heard of the Maharaja’s name 
also; after, on our arrival at Poonah , we heard with cer¬ 
tainty of Govind Row’s apprehension —and Purshotum 
swears,§— c ‘ We hea r d on the Nurmuda River, near Mund- 
leswur, from travellers who were passing, that Govind Row 
was apprehended, so the travellers said.” 

Hybuttee Palkur also, in contradiction to the statements 
of his companions, ||—denies that they had any papers or 
letters with them on their return from Joudpore to Sattara. 

The witness Abba Mahreek professes^ to have been em¬ 
ployed by the ex-Raj a as a spy upon the proceedings of 
Yellojee Mohitey, the principal agent in conveying these 
treasonable communications. He says,**—“ The Maharaj 
told me, ‘ Yellojee Mohitey sends people to Joudpore ; is 
that true or how ? do you ascertain this by sending a man ?’ 
Upon this I despatched a man, Wittoo Bogania,to Joudpore.” 
Both Colonel Ovans and Sir R. Grant,ff have laboured 
hard to remove the prima facie improbability of this story, 
and to shew that the practice of employing spies over their 
secret agents, was common among native courts; admitting 
this, however, to be the case, why was it delayed so long ?” 
Yellojee Mohitey is stated to have been employed in the 

* Par. pa. 591. t Pur. pa. 586. t Ibid. § Par. pa. 590. 

|| Par. pa. 586. f Par. pa. 587. ** Ibid. ft Par. pa. 189. 


61 


Joudpore affair for five years, but Wittoo Bogania’s mission 
did not take place till two years afterwards,* nor does 
anything appear to have occurred at that time, which would 
account for a suspicion of Yellojee’s fidelity being enter¬ 
tained by the ex-Raj a. 

The evidence of Abba Mahreek appears to have been 
considered of great importance, as implicating the ex-Raja, 
in this alleged intrigue; but to what, after all, does that 
evidence amount: that a letter, without address or signa¬ 
ture, had been delivered to the ex-Raja, in the presence of 
the witness and Dinkur Rao Mohitey; that an old sword, 
supposed to have belonged formerly to the armoury of Appa 
Sahib, was sent to that prince with the cognizance of the 
ex-Raja ; and that a treasonable message was sent by his 
Highness to Appa Sahib, in terms, the very absurdity of 
which is alone sufficient to render the fact of its having been 
sent altogether incredible. In addition to the intrinsic 
worthlessness of the evidence of Abba Mahreek, as impli¬ 
cating the ex-Raja, his statements as to the letter and 
message have been distinctly contradicted^ by Dinkur Rao 
Mohitey, a witness of high rank, and undoubted respecta¬ 
bility, but whose evidence, as given by a friend to the ex- 
Raja, of course met with no credit. 

In detailing the particulars of the alleged interview be¬ 
tween Govind Row, Dewan, and Purshotum, previous to 
the departure of the latter for Joudpore, Abba Mahreek 
repeats + the words of the message which the Dewan sent to 
Appa Sahib; Purshotum, however, represents^ the in¬ 
terview as having been strictly private: that Abba Mah¬ 
reek went and sat down at a distance; and that he (Pur¬ 
shotum) did not mention the matter to Abba Mahreek, 
the Dewan having desired him not to mention it to any one. 

Nor is the evidence of Abba Mahreek more consistent 
with that of Purshotum, in their description of the manner 


* Par. pa. 594. 
t Par. pa. 588. 


t Par. pa. 868. 
§ Par. pa. 589. 


62 


in which the sword was confided to the care of the latter, 
Abba Mahreek stating* as follows—The verna was pre¬ 
pared, and the sword was put in it in the surkaree, ‘ stoork- 
hara,’ under the Dewan, superintended by Rewulram ; 
4 take that verna and deliver it to Appa Sahib, there is a 
sword in it ’—thus the Rao Sahib said to Purshotum : 
this I heard, being near at hand.” Purshotum, however, 
says,f— c4 Next day the Rao Sahib sent the verna by a 
khitmutgar to the Mahreek : I did not see it with my own 
eyes : the Rao Sahib’s man delivered it.” 

With regard to Purshotum, the discrepancies which 
occur, as we have seen, between his evidence and that of 
Abba Mahreek, and the two servants, of course throw sus¬ 
picion upon his statement. It is also most singular, that 
while he represents himself as the bearer of a message 
from Govind Row Dewan to Appa Sahib, the delivery of 
which was one of the chief objects of his mission to Joud- 
pore, on being asked to whom he communicated Appa Sa¬ 
hib’s answer on his return to Sattara, he states ,^—“ I com¬ 
municated it to no one; I only told Abba Mahreek that 
Appa Sahib said,— 4 We are in health and happiness; on 
whatever day God may extend his favour, that is certain.’ 
So I said : the answer about the twenty-five lacs to be com¬ 
municated to the Rao Sahib I delivered to no one.” 

Such is the character of the evidence of Abba Mahreek 
and his emissaries : we shall see that that given by Yellojee 
Mohitey and his party is, if anything, less worthy of credit. 

Appajee Jadow§ was the first of Yellojee’s servants who 
was examined. He states, that about five years before the 
time of his examination, a person named Sievram came from 
Appa Sahib, the ex-Raja of Nagpoor, and was introduced 
to the ex-Raja of Sattara by Yellojee Mohitey, and that 
this Sievram returned to Joudpore about a year afterwards, 
accompanied by Kedaree Mania ; that Kedaree afterwards 
returned to Sattara with a man named Bhudia, who was 

* Par. pa. 588. t Par. pa. 590. t Ibid. § Par. pa. 592. 


63 

also introduced to the ex-Raja, and who, about a year af¬ 
terwards, was sent back to Joudpore with Wittoo Patrykur: 
that Wittoo Patrykur returned about a year afterwards 
with a person called Borneykur, and was introduced to the 
ex-Raja ; and that about a year before the time of his exa¬ 
mination, Wittoo Patrykur and Kedaree, accompanied by a 
Brahmin, were sent to Joudpore with letters from the ex- 
Raja : that the two former afterwards returned to Sattara, 
accompanied by one Bhikoo, and bringing eleven pairs of 
shoes, presents from Appa Sahib; that shortly after their 
return Govind Row was seized : Bhikoo was accordingly 
concealed in the house of a servant of Yellojee Mohitey : 
Wittoo Patrykur and Kedaree were sent away to a neigh¬ 
bouring village, and the shoes sent by Appa Sahib were 
burnt. 

On receiving the information given by Appajee Jadow, 
a confidential emissary was immediately dispatched by Co¬ 
lonel Ovans to Goway, the village to which Wittoo and 
Kedaree were represented to have been sent, with direc¬ 
tions to bring them to Sattara. The attempt to discover 
their place of concealment having proved unsuccessful, 
Colonel Ovans applied to the ex-Raja to have these per¬ 
sons sent to the Residency, and as in the case of Govind 
Row and the other parties alleged to have been concerned 
in the attempt to seduce the native officers, the request was 
readily complied with. Surely this should have been con¬ 
sidered somewhat in favour of the supposition that the ex- 
Raja was innocent of the crime laid to his charge. What 
could have been more easy than to have kept these two 
persons, important witnesses as they ^certainly were, if their 
story were true, out of the way till the investigation had 
concluded ? The conduct of the ex-Raja indeed, through¬ 
out the whole affair, was that of a person conscious of inno¬ 
cence, and before impartial judges the utter falsity of the 
accusation against him could hardly have failed to have 
been made manifest. 

On referring to the depositions of Yellojee Mohitey, and 


64 

the two servants, Wittoo Patrykur and Kedaree, it will be 
found that the dates assigned by Appajee Jadow, to the 
different missions to Joudpore, differ considerably from their 
statements. So as to the presents of shoes alleged to have 
been sent by Appa Sahib, Appajee Jadow mentions eleven 
pairs, and specifies particularly for whom they were in¬ 
tended ; Yellojee and Kedaree state that only four pairs 
were sent, while Wittoo Patrykur says first that there were 
four, and afterwards that there were six pairs sent. 

In the latter part of his deposition Appajee Jadow states, 
that the day on which the Mahreek was arrested, Dinkur 
Rao having hidden Yellojee in the droghur (or the room 
where idols are placed), fixed a lock to it. This circum¬ 
stance, if true, would hardly have been omitted as it is, in 
the deposition of Yellojee himself. Appajee Jadow also 
states that Bhikoo, or as he calls him Krishna, was con¬ 
cealed for two months in the house of Dhondia Katia, 
whereas, according to the other evidence, he appears to 
have been there for no longer than six or eight days. 

The evidence of Yellojee Mohitey, Wittoo, and Kedaree, 
is extremely contradictory, and even their final statements, 
which Colonel Ovans says he has every reason to believe, 
differ materially from each other. 

The accounts given by these three persons of the missions 
to and from Joudpore, at the early part of their several 
examinations, are completely at variance with the state¬ 
ments finally elicited from them: nor is it easy to glean 
from the evidence as recorded by Colonel Ovans, any suffi¬ 
cient reason for their desertion of the first, and adoption of 
the final story. Sir R. Grant assumes,* that after the ex¬ 
amination commenced, they had no means of communi¬ 
cating together, or of knowing what had been deposed by 
each other. This, however, by no means appears, and it 
may be confidently said, that no impartial reader of the 
evidence given by these three persons, could, in the absence 
of any positive statement to the contrary by Colonel Ovans, 
* Par. pa. 187. 


65 


believe otherwise than that the story finally told by them 
was concocted after their original statements were found to 
be unsatisfactory ; but whether that be the case or not, the 
gross prevarication and perjury exhibited in their deposi¬ 
tions is amply sufficient to render the testimony of these 
witnesses entirely worthless. 

Even in their final stories the discrepancies between the 
statement of Yellojee Mohitey and his servants are very 
numerous. To cite only a few of them : Wittoo Patrykur 
states # that when he went to Joudpore w T ith Bhudia, he 
delivered a letter to Appa Sahib from Yellojee Mohitey, 
but makes no mention of any message. Yellojee, on the 
contrary, states, f that they were entrusted with a verbal 
message from the ex-Baja to Appa Sahib, but says nothing 
about any letter from himself. Again, on his return from 
Joudpore with the Borneykur, Wittoo states £ that Appa 
Sahib gave them two packets for Sattara, whereas Yellojee 
says § that only one was brought, being a sealed letter for 
the ex-Raja, enclosing a note in the handwriting of Appa 
Sahib ; Kedaree also mentions || that letters were brought by 
himself and Wittoo on this occasion. The inference to be 
drawn from these contradictory statements is plain ; Wittoo 
Patrykur and Kedaree knew that according to the concerted 
story two letters were to have been stated to have been sent 
by Appa Sahib, but unfortunately forgot that one was sealed 
up in the other, and that they therefore ought not to have 
been aware of its existence. 

Wittoo then goes on to state as follows :—51 <s Taking them 
(the letters), I came to Sattara. The Borneykur stayed at 
Jambgaon, and came fifteen days afterwards, I came before : 
I went with Bappoo Sahib (Yellojee) into the SirkarAYara 
(Raja’s palace), and gave the packets to Bappoo Sahib 
(Yellojee), and he delivered them to the Maharaj : there 
were only the Maharaj , Bappoo Sahib (Yellojee), and 
myself, in the almond-shaped room” Referring now to the 

* Par. pa. 596. t Par. pa. G02. X Par. pa 596. 

Par. pa. 602, || Par. pa. 599. Par. pa. 596. 

F 


66 


deposition of Yellojee, we 6nd him stating * ** distinctly, 
that he took both Wittoo and the Borneykur to the ex-Raja 
on this occasion. 

Kedaree and Wittoo state f that they were accompanied 
on the occasion on which they went together to Joudpore, 
by a Karkoon named Raojee Dagumber, w r hom they over¬ 
took after leaving Sattara. Kedaree, however, states,J 
that they came up with this person at Hurreywaguz, while 
Wittoo declares that their meeting occurred at a village on 
the bank of the Neera, near Baramuttee. Again, both 
Kedaree and Wittoo state § that on their return to Sattara, 
accompanied by Bhikoo, that person was not introduced to 
the ex-Raja. Yellojee Mohitey, however, distinctly states || 
that he was. 

It will not be easy to reconcile Colonel Ovans’s declara¬ 
tion of belief in the truth of the final answers of Yellojee 
and his servants, with the above direct contradictions. 

The evidence of Yellojee Mohitey is also contradicted 
by his brother, Dinkur Rao. Yellojee having stated^ that 
on the second visit of Appa Sahib’s servant Sievram to 
Sattara, he brought three letters, for Dinkur Rao, Yellojee, 
and their mother. Dinkur Rao however states * # that no 
messengers of the Bhonsleh (Appa Sahib) came to him, nor 
did any one introduce them to him, nor did he see them, nor 
did he know them ; and concludes his evidence with the 
following ff protestation:—“ If I have sent any treasonable 
letter to any one, or if I have myself brought and intro¬ 
duced any one to the Surkar, or if any one’s letter has 
come to me, or if any evidence or proof respecting any 
treasonable project be established against me, according to 
justice, I am present before the Sahib. Let what may be 
requisite be done, the Sahib is master.” 

It is also remarkable that Yellojee Mohitey states XX that 
at the time at which the Maharaj told him to destroy the 

* Par. pa. 602. t Par. pa. 595, 597. * Par. pa. 598. 

$ Par - pa. 596, 598. || Par. pa. 603. f Par. pa. 602. 

** Par < pa. 868. ft Par. pa. 869. U Par. pa. 600. 


67 


letters, he said, “ I will make your mother give your pro¬ 
perty to you, but do you entirely destroy all the letters.” 
Yet we do not find that this promise was fulfilled, though, 
had Yellojee’s tale been true, it would have been most 
natural for the Raja to reward useful service to himself, 
particularly when the reward was to be at the expense of 
others. 

The part of Govind Row’s confession referring to the 
alleged correspondence with the ex-Raj a of Nagpoor is as 
follows :—* 

(i I know of no communication between the Raja and 
Appa Sahib, the ex-Raja of Nagpoor, except what Maha- 
dreek (Abba Mahreek), with whom ! am very intimate, 
told me. He stated to me about three, or four, or five 
years ago, I cannot exactly recollect how long, and indeed 
the fact had almost escaped my memory, that he had a 
conversation with the Raja, and was then about to despatch 
a messenger to Appa Sahib, at Joudpore, with a letter, the 
object of which was to establish a friendly understanding 
between him and his Highness. He also said that the Raja 
had particularly enjoined him not to allow his (Mahadreek’s) 
friendship for me to induce him to make me acquainted 
with it. I do not recollect the name of the messenger : he 
was an inferior servant of Mahadreek’s, and was, I believe, 
merely the bearer of the letter. 

“ Mahadreek was formerly a servant of Appa Sahib, and 
the Raja knew him to be on terms of friendship with him. 
In Kartick, or Maysirmas Succey, 1757, he who kept his 
arms, money, &c. at my house, told me that an answer had 
come from Appa Sahib to the letter before sent, and that 
Appa Sahib wanted of him a sword of his, which he had 
brought away with him on leaving his service, and this he 
wanted to take away to send back. Mahadreek told me 
that the Raja knew nothing of this. The sword was one 
very much prized. It would not be mentioned to his 
Highness for fear he should take a fancy to it. It was put 
into a (blank in the original) to be sent: but this was for 
* Par. pa. 872. 


68 


security, and nothing else. The letter sent with it was pre¬ 
pared by the joint counsel of the Raja, the Senaputtee, 
Dinkur Rao, and Mahadreek ; it contained, as far as I heard, 
merely friendly expressions, and an answer of some nature 
to Appa’s observations on his hope of soon returning to 
Nagpoor. Purshotum Punt Karkoon was the bearer of it, 
and he had not returned to Sattara when I was imprisoned. 
I know not if the Karkoon was entrusted with any message, 
but it is not likely, as he was not a person of any conse¬ 
quence. 

“The only letters 1 heard of passing between Appa 
Sahib and the Raja, or any people at Sattara, are those 
before described, and what I have now stated is all I know 
of them.” 

On a subsequent occasion he states,* that the Mahadreek 
told him that when Purshotum was sent to Joudpore, he 
was entrusted with a message to Appa Sahib from the ex- 
Raja, requesting a loan of 20 or 25 lacs of rupees, by 
means of which he hoped to obtain assistance from Goa in 
his treasonable designs against the British Government. 
Abba Mahreek and Purshotum, as we have seen, represent 
the Dewan himself as having sent the message. 

The circumstances already mentioned, under which the 
confession of Govind Row was obtained, and the complete 
recantation which he made when he found himself again a 
free agent, deprive his statements of all weight—but even 
were it otherwise, the above passages from his evidence are 
no more than hearsay, the substance of information obtained 
from Abba Mahreek, and therefore are of no avail in sup¬ 
porting the case of the ex-Raja’s accusers. 

The documentary evidence adduced in support of the 
present charge, is of the most contemptible nature. It 
consisted, as we have seen, of five letters, four of them pur¬ 
porting to be from Appa Sahib, to the ex-Raja, Yellojee 
Mohitey, his mother, and the Senaputtee, respectively, 
and the fifth an original letter from Appa Sahib to a servant 
of his, named Poonjajee Sindeh. 

* Par. pa. 878. 


69 


It does not appear in what manner the three letters 
addressed to the ex-Raja, to Yellojee Mohitey,and to his 
mother, came into the possession of Colonel Ovans : that 
officer merely stating* that they had fallen into his hands, 
and that he had reason to believe that they were procured 
from the house of Dinkur Rao : a similar remark applies to 
the fourth paper, which Colonel Ovans describes f as a copy 
of a letter from Appa Sahib to the Senaputtee, the original 
of which was produced under a pledge that it should be 
returned. 

It will be seen that there is good ground for believing 
that these papers were forged; and there can be little 
doubt, that they were in fact the production of Ballajee 
Punt Nattoo and his party. 

The letter purporting to have been sent by Appa Sahib 
to the ex-Raja, and that to the Senaputtee, mention that 
letters had been received, and sent by the writer by the 
hands of Ragho Punt Dhatsakul. Accordingly, in the 
month of February, 1838, Colonel Ovans, having learnt 
that this person had recently arrived from Hindostan at 
Mahowlee, a village near Sattara, caused him to be brought 
with his papers to the Residency, when he is represented to 
have admitted, that he, on one occasion, brought a packet 
of letters from Joudpore to Sattara, and that a packet of 
letters from Sattara had been given to Appa Sahib at 
Joudpore in his presence. He then produced the fifth 
letter before alluded to—and he is recorded];, after a long 
examination, to have made the admission above-mentioned, 
but to have denied all further information as to the letters 
produced. He is said also to have admitted, that the seals 
on the letter addressed to Poonjajee Sindeh, were those of 
Appa Sahib, and to have declared, that those attached to 
the three other letters before-mentioned, were exactly 
similar. A reference to the Parliamentary papers,§ will, 
however, show that this statement, if it were really made 
by Ragho Punt, is not founded on fact: the mortub, or 
* Par. pa. 416. t Par. pa. 418. t Par. pa. 881. $ Par. pa. 884. 


70 


small seal, on the letter addressed to Yellojee Mohitey 
being circular, while that on the letter produced by Ragho 
Punt is of an oblong shape. 

The witnesses Yellojee Mohitey, Abba Mahreek, and 
Purshotum, also state that the seals on the three letters 
addressed to the ex-Raja, Yellojee, and his mother, were 
those of Appa Sahib; the letter to Poonjajee Sindeh was 
not shewn to them. The difference between the mortub 
used in the first three letters and that attached to the letter 
produced by Ragho Punt, must have been evident to 
Colonel Ovans; yet it was not only suffered to pass un¬ 
noticed by him, but he distinctly states, that the seals used 
in both cases were the same: and both he and Sir Robert 
Grant make use of this last letter as a strong proof of the 
genuineness of the former ones. 

But on reading the following extract from a petition, 
which was presented to Sir James Carnac in the month of 
April, 1840, by Ragho Punt Dhatsakul, the suspicion that 
these documents were fabricated by the parties interested 
in establishing the charge against the ex-Raja, amounts to 
a certainty. 

“ That your petitioner, in the month of Magh, 1759, 
A.D. 1838, arrived at Mahoole, near Sattara ; and while 
he was with his father-in-law on the 30th of the same 
month, three men from Ballajee Punt Nattoo, with two 
Putwallas from the Resident, and four other Sepoys, with 
Dajiba Putwurdhun, came and carried your petitioner to 
the Resident, Colonel Ovans. There he was interrogated 
by Colonel Ovans, whether he carried any letters of insi¬ 
nuation (conspiracy) from his Highness the Raja of Sat¬ 
tara. Being quite ignorant of those things, he answered 
that he had no knowledge respecting this matter, and that 
your petitioner was ordered to remain for a few days, that 
they might take down his deposition on some important 
matters. That your petitioner’s case was referred to Bal¬ 
lajee Punt Nattoo, Dajiba Putwurdhun, and Ballajee 
Punt Kibey; that your petitioner was then privately asked 


71 


by Ballajee Punt Nattoo, if he carried any letters of con¬ 
spiracy from his Highness to the Rajas of Joudpore and 
Jypoor, Scindia, Holkar, and Jaycooad. He being ignorant 
of these things, said he never carried such letters to any 
Rajas, and he had no business with such letters. They 
tried him by other means, such as offering rewards, grants, 
enams, &c. and then threatened him with punishment, 
such as putting in chains, transportation, death, &c. that he 
might be tempted to give some information; but your 
petitioner being utterly ignorant of these circumstances, 
plainly said he did not know anything of the subject. 
That your petitioner found himself in an extreme difficulty 
with regard to means of support, and was actually without 
food for some days. While suffering under such severe 
treatment, he was forced by the above-mentioned individuals 
to sign the papers, written in Mahratta, which he could not 
read; but he has since been told, that other papers were 
secretly mixed with his, which were never in his possession, 
and by force some of the above-named men held the pen, 
and caused the letters of his name to be written on those 
papers. That he was kept 18 months in imprisonment: at 
the end he was sent to Poonah, with orders not to return 
to Sattara again.” 

Such is the character of the evidence upon which the 
charge of maintaining a treasonable correspondence with 
the ex-Raja of Nagpoor is founded, and by which Colonel 
Ovans considered that charge to be clearly established. 

Sir Robert Grant does not go quite so far as his subor¬ 
dinate ; but even he thinks* it established, by a weight of 
evidence not to be resisted, that for years together a close 
and secret correspondence, both by letters and messengers, 
had been carried on between the ex-Raja and the Bhonsleh, 
and though the letters produced, even assuming them to 
be genuine, do not contain a hint of any treacherous 
design he infers at once that the subject of the correspon¬ 
dence must have been treason. He considers it impossible 
* Par. pa. 193, 


72 


that the witnesses could have concerted a story against the 
ex-Raj a; indeed, he goes further, and thinks that if there 
were any concert at all, it was in his Highness’s favour. 
Yet Yellojee Mohitey, the chief witness in support of the 
case, had, as we have seen, strong reason for desiring to 
injure his sovereign, while the other witnesses consisted 
principally of his servants and connections ; and, moreover, 
the evidence, such as it was, being entirely exparte, and no 
opportunity having been given to the ex-Raja to test its 
truth by cross-examination or otherwise, collusion on the 
part of the witnesses against him ran no risk of detection 
by an examiner, who could put faith in the contradictory 
statements of Yellojee and his party, and deny all credit to 
the consistent denials of Dinkur Rao. The evidence relat¬ 
ing to the Joudpore charges is, indeed, as described by the 
Governor General, # “ in the highest degree suspicious.” 

The third and most important of the Sattara charges was 
that of maintaining a treasonable correspondence with Don 
Manoel de Portugal e Castro, Viceroy of Goa, for the pur¬ 
pose of obtaining the assistance of the Portuguese in over¬ 
throwing the British authority in India. 

The following are the alleged facts of the case:— 

Sometime in the year 1825, the late Swamee of Sunkesh- 
wur, a leading Brahmin, formed a project of a political 
intrigue with the Portuguese at Goa, and accordingly sent 
two emissaries to that place, one of them being a person 
named by the witnesses “Irkool,” or “ Erculan,” but whose 
real name was Herculano de Nora, and the other named 
Nago Deorao, a nephew of the Swamee, and who, like his 
uncle, was a Brahmin of some consequence ; these persons 
proceeded to Goa, and returned to Sunkeshwur in the same 
year, where they represented to their employer that the Goa 
authorities required funds to induce them to join in the 
intrigue ; and accordingly the Swamee resolved to endea¬ 
vour to obtain the assistance of the ex-Raja of Sattara; and 
in the course of the same year he went to Sattara, accom- 
* Par. pa. 110. 


73 


panied by Nago Deorao. While there, the Swamee had 
an interview with the Raja, but nothing was done in the 
prosecution of the affair, except that the Swamee then re¬ 
commended Nago to the Raja as a fit person to be employed 
as the chief agent in the proposed intrigues. 

In the year 1827, Don Manoel de Portugal e Castro was 
appointed Viceroy at Goa ; and shortly after his accession, 
Nago, through the medium of one Raojee Kootness, and 
Herculano, was introduced to the Viceroy’s confidential 
steward, by whose means he succeeded in obtaining admis¬ 
sion to the presence of the Viceroy himself, to whom he 
explained the object of his employers. 

Don Manoel appeared favourably disposed to join in the 
intended conspiracy, but required first that a yad, or agree¬ 
ment, should be produced on the part of the Raja of Sat- 
tara; and, accordingly, in the year 1829, such an agreement 
was prepared, and after copies had been taken by one 
Wassoodew Shastree, and delivered to the Swamee, the 
original was taken by Nago Deorao to Goa, and was after¬ 
wards retained by that person in his own possession. 

Complete confidence was not, however, established be¬ 
tween the parties till about June, 1831, when Herculano 
and Raojee Kootness came to Sattara, on the part of the 
Viceroy, and at a nocturnal interview with the Raja, were 
assured that the proposals brought by Nago really emanated 
from his Highness. On this occasion, a letter from Don 
Manoel was delivered to the Raja, and presents were made 
both to the Portuguese emissaries and the Sattara agents. 

After this period, specific salaries were assigned to Nago 
Deorao and his party, and the communications with Goa 
became regular and frequent. The funds necessary for the 
payment of these salaries, and the other expenses of the in¬ 
trigue, were supplied by a banker at Sattara, named le- 
jeeram, who received them indirectly from the Raja, the 
entries in his books being made in the names of Soopojee 
and Doordojee. In the course of the intrigue, Nago had fre¬ 
quent meetings with the Raja and Don Manoel, and the 


74 


Raja had also interviews with Raojee Kootness and the 
other agents employed. 

In 1835, Don Manoel having ceased to be Viceroy ol 
Goa, and being on the point of taking his departure for 
Europe, Mahdoo Rao Sirkey was deputed to him by the 
Raja, as is alleged, to test the truth of Nago Deorao and 
his party; Nago, however, accompanied this person on his 
mission. 

Before the end of 1835, Nago returned to Sattara, and 
obtained from the Raja a sum of 8000 rupees, chiefly to 
defray the expense of sending an agent to Europe with Don 
Manoel, on behalf of his Highness. With 4000 rupees of 
this sum in hoondees, Nago set out for Goa, but was rob¬ 
bed of the money on the way. In consequence of the delay 
necessary to obtain fresh hoondees, Nago never afterwards 
saw Don Manoel, who shortly afterwards departed for 
Europe. 

On the 30th July, 1836, Nago, who after the departure 
of Don Manoel, had taken up his residence at Sawunt 
Warree, a village near Goa, died at that place, and on his 
death-bed delivered certain seals and papers to his brother- 
in-law, Balkoba Kelkur, with a letter, said to be addressed 
to the Raja, recommending his family and dependents to 
his protection. 

After the death of Nago, and at the time when the al¬ 
leged attempts to seduce the Sepoys of the 23rd Regiment 
were in progress, the Raja directed Raojee Kootness and 
another agent, named Narain Chittey, to take measures for 
despatching Herculano or some other person on his behalf 
to Portugal. These persons accordingly went to Bombay, 
and corresponded for some time with Herculano, who was 
then at Damaun ;—while this correspondence was going on, 
the alleged attempt upon the Sepoys’ fidelity wasdiscovered, 
which prevented the further prosecution of the intrigue. 

With regard to Nago Deorao, the alleged chief agent in 
this conspiracy, besides being, as a Brahmin, the natural 
enemy of the ex-Raja, he was, as appears from the following 


75 


letters, an intimate friend and associate of Ballajee Punt 
Nattoo, to whose exertions the downfall of his sovereign 
may be chiefly attributed. 

Abaji Hari Sabane, an inhabitant of Waee, the native 
town of Nago Deorao, wrote as follows on the 11th of April, 
1842, to his Highness’s Vakeel in London: 

“ You request me to inform you what I know respecting 
Ballajee Punt Nattoo and Nago Deorao, since the time of 
Rhande Rao Raste. With respect to their proceedings at 
the period to which you refer, (at the time of Bajee Row, 
the Peishwa’s usurpation), as I was then a mere child, I can 
only speak of them from what I have heard from the testi¬ 
mony of others, whose opinions I have every reason to re¬ 
spect. But in 1819, Ballajee Punt Nattoo married his 
daughter to Nilkanth Shastri’s son, at which period Nago 
Deorao and he were intimate friends. I know to a cer¬ 
tainty that they continued to be friends up to the time of 
Nago Deorao’s death, which took place towards the close of 
1836. 

ct I recollect perfectly well the circumstance of BallajeePunt 
Nattoo’s assembling a multitude of Brahmins at Waee, whom 
he induced to follow him to Rahmatpoor, where Sir John 
Malcolm was encamped on his tour to Dharwar, and there 
made some complaints against the Prubhoo caste: Nago 
Deorao was amongst them. They followed the Governor 
for several days, until he at length succeeded in dispersing 
them to their homes, by telling them that Government 
would not interfere in any religious disputes they might 
have with the other Hindoos.” 

Govind Mahadeo Sani, another inhabitant of Waee, 
writes as follows to the ex-Raja’s Vakeel in London, under 
date the 21st of April, 1841 :— 

u With respect to what you are desirous of ascertaining, 
whether Ballajee Punt Nattoo is upon intimate terms with 
Nago Deorao Wedh, I have to observe, that they are friends 
of old standing. Ballajee Punt Nattoo was formerly a 
dependant of an uncle of mine, Ganesh Narain Sani, and 


76 


was employed by him in the capacity of a messenger, be¬ 
tween himself (Ganesh Narain Sani) and Khande Rao 
Raste, minister of Baji Rao, the Peishwa. He continued 
in this service for about two years, when he was taken 
into the service of Khande Rao Raste, and his place was 
filled by Nago Deorao. Khande Rao Raste then employed 
him in a similar capacity, in his communications with the 
Company’s authorities. At this time Ballajee Punt Nattoo 
became first acquainted with Nago Deorao; and an inti¬ 
macy sprang up between them, which has continued ever 
since. 

“ As for Nilkanth Rao Shastri, he is well known to be a 
relation of Nago Deorao, both inhabitants of Waee ; and 
you know that Ballajee Punt Nattoo gave his daughter in 
marriage to Nilkanth Shastri’s son. Since that circum¬ 
stance, they have become still more intimate in consequence 
of this alliance. Nago Deorao is also a particular friend 
of Abadosi. 

« When Sir John Malcolm was on his way to Dharwar, 
Ballajee Punt Nattoo and Nago Deorao, having instigated 
a considerable number of Brahmins, both of Waee and 
other places, made themselves their ringleaders, and in¬ 
duced them to go in a body to Sir John Malcolm, for the 
purpose of laying before him some complaints they had to 
make against Bulwunt Rao, (his Highness the Raja of Sat- 
tara’s secretary), originating in some religious disputes they 
had had with the Prubhoo caste to which he belonged. 
About this time Ballajee Punt Nattoo prevailed on Nago 
Deorao to get up the case of the Goa charge: for which 
purpose, Nago Deorao suborned Balkoba Kelkur, Hurry 
Punt Fatuk, and some others. Nattoo also sent Nago 
Deorao to Sankeshwurker Swamee, and brought him to 
Poonah to be employed in their nefarious proceedings. 
When their plans were ripe, they ventured to insinuate the 
charge against the Raja. This coming to the ears of Mr. 
Nisbet, the judge at Dharwar, induced him to make in¬ 
quiries into the report, when, after due investigation, he 


77 


pronounced it a scandalous combination on the part of the 
Brahmins against the Raja, and dismissed the case.” 

The ex-Raja, it will be remembered, was the chief op¬ 
ponent of the Brahmin caste in their dispute with the 
Prubhoos ; and the complaints of Nago Deorao and his 
fellow Brahmins, were principally directed against him ; 
yet this man, aware as his Highness was of the faction to 
which he belonged, and the enmity which he bore to 
himself, is the person represented to have been entrusted 
with the conduct of negotiations, requiring the utmost 
secrecy and fidelity, and to have performed his duties, 
during a period of 12 years, without a desire to betray his 
employer; and it is upon his dicta, as reported by his 
Brahmin followers, that the present charge against the ex- 
Raja mainly rests. 

In his earlier reports, Colonel Ovans occasionally hints 
at information which he has received on the subject of this 
affair; but the first direct intimation of its existence is 
contained in his letter to the Bombay Government, of the 
12th of August, 1837 , # in which he states that he had 
already obtained evidence to show that secret communica¬ 
tions had been going on with Goa for some time back 
which had only been suspended on the death of the prin¬ 
cipal agents. With this letter, Colonel Ovans forwarded 
to Bombay the deposition of Dajee Bulal Waeed, who was 
examined by him on the 7th August, 1837. 

Previously, however, to the examination of Dajee Bulal 
Waeed, the deposition of Wassoodew Shastri, dated the 
20th of July, 1837, was taken by Colonel Ovans. 

He statesf that he is an inhabitant of Rutnagherry; that 
he has been acquainted with the Goa affair for nine or ten 
years ; that Nago Deorao, to whom he was distantly re¬ 
lated, came from Baroda to Sattara to serve in the horse 
risala; but that having become involved in debt, Nago 
left Sattara, and went to the Kolapoor district, from whence 
he again came to Sattara in company with the Swamee. 

* Par. pa. 386. 


t Par. pa. 719. 


78 


That a meeting took place between the Swamee and the 
ex-Raja, after which Nago Deorao was sent on the part of 
the ex-Raja to the Viceroy of Goa, who required that an 
agreement should be produced on the part of his Highness. 
That Nago then left Goa, and went to Sunkeshwur, where 
the witness lodged with him—that he afterwards, in the 
year 1829, went again to Sattara, and procured a Yad to 
be drawn up by the ex-Raja, of which the witness made 
copies, and gave them to the Swamee. The substance of 
this yad or agreement being, that the ex-Raja bound him¬ 
self to pay to the Viceroy of Goa three crores of rupees, on 
40 pultans (battalions) being sent from Portugal to assist in 
the subversion of the British Government, it being stipu¬ 
lated that the sicca and mortub to be attached to the yad 
should be affixed reciprocally on an interview with the 
Governor. 

That Nago then went to Goa, taking the yad with him ; 
that he had an interview with the Viceroy, who agreed to 
the terms, and that he then returned to Sattara. The 
witness afterwards heard that he (Nago) had an interview 
with the ex-Raja, who required that some confidential agent 
should be seat on the part of the Viceroy—that Nago 
accordingly went again to Goa and returned, bringing with 
him a person named Moosafit, who was introduced to the 
ex-Raja, as coming on the part of the Viceroy —that the 
ex-Raja on that occasion made large presents to Moosafit, 
and also to Naga Deorao, Hurry Punt Patuk, Narain 
Chittey, Balkoba Kelkur, and MoroPunt Josee, which last 
four persons were members of Nago’s Mundullee, or party 
—and that Moosafit then returned to Goa, accompanied by 
Nago Deorao, and Balkoba. 

He also states, that the salaries to Nago and his party 
were paid, through Tejeeram, a banker at Sattara; that 
Nago used to come to Sattara every year or second year, 
and that he used to live at the house of Moro Punt Josee, 
and that his visits to the ex-Raja were arranged by Row- 
lojee Naik—that the sum of 36,000 rupees in all was 


79 


expended by the ex-Raja upon this affair—that Nago 
Deorao died at Sawunt Warree, a village near Goa, in the 
month of July, 1836, and that the original agreement 
procured from the ex-Raja was not returned to his High¬ 
ness, but was retained by Nago. 

On the yad being produced and the witness asked whe - 
ther the contents were correct, he states that it exactly 
coincides with that copied by him ; there is not the least 
difference. But on being asked who was meant by the 
governor named by him as mentioned in the yad, he states 
immediately, in direct contradiction to his former explicit 
statement,* that ‘ 4 governor does not appear in the yad ; my 
belief is, that as the affair was of Goa, it was the governor 
of that place ” 

On being asked as to the date of the yad which he 
copied, he states that,f “in the yad, Sukey 1749, (a.d. 
1827-28) appearedbut on being reminded that he had 
already sworn that Nago Deorao took the yad with him to 
Goa in Sukey 1751 (a.d. 1829-30), he again flatly con¬ 
tradicts himself, and says that Sukey 1749 (a.d. 1827-28) 
was the correct date. 

With the exception of the fact of Nago Deorao’s first 
visit to Sattara, and of the witness’s having made a copy of 
the yad procured from the ex-Raja, the whole of the above 
statement is founded on hearsay. The fact of the presents 
having been made to Moosafit, and Nago Deorao and his 
party, having been as he stated communicated to him by 
Balkoba Kelkur and a person named Vishnoo Punt 
Dewustuley, the maternal uncle of Govind Row; the 
latter person, however, as appears from his deposition,J 
knew nothing of this affair of his own knowledge; and if 
we may believe the following statement made by him in a 
letter, dated the 16th of November, 1843, and forwarded 
to the Court of Directors, his deposition is itself a fabrica¬ 
tion. He says— 

“ I have heard the following strange proceedings done 
* Par. pa. 722. t Par. pa. 722. t Par. pa. 821. 


80 


in my name, it appears, at the instigation of Ballajee Punt 
Nattoo and others. The Resident, Colonel Ovans, wrote 
to the Bombay Government, who forwarded the same to 
the Court of Directors, who have published it in the 
printed Sattara papers, to the effect that I gave evidence 
against the Raja on the Goa charge. 1 declare that I never 
gave a petition to the Resident, (alluding to the alleged 
petition of Girjahbaee), or ever appeared as a witness on 
the Goa charge, or indeed that I ever had any communica¬ 
tion with the Resident on the subject; that 1 most solemnly 
declare the whole to be false, and which I have communi¬ 
cated to the judge at Benares,” 

Now, without accusing Colonel Ovans of haung forged 
false depositions against the ex-Raja, it is by no means im¬ 
possible that the collection of part of the enormous mass 
of evidence recorded in relation to the Goa affair, may have 
been entrusted to Ballajee Punt Nattoo, who would not 
scruple to use any means to effect the ruin of his master. 

Dajee Bulal Waeed states that he went to Nago Deorao,* 
who was his father’s cousin, at Goa, in April, 1834, and that 
in July, 1836, Nago died; that he was with him at Goa, 
Sattara, Sunkeshwur, and Ranavy for a little less than 
three years. 

He then proceeds to state a variety of circumstances con¬ 
nected with the alleged missions of Nago Deorao to Goa, 
previous to the time at which he joined him ; but as his 
statements rest solely on information obtained from Nago 
himself, who was dead at the time of his examination, it is 
unnecessary to notice them. Colonel Ovans can only be 
excused for the admission of such statements as these into 
his reports by the supposition that he was altogether ig¬ 
norant of the rules, by which the admissibility of evidence 
is regulated. 

The deposition goes on to state, that in the month of 
January, 1835, he accompanied Nago to Goa, when Nago 
used frequently to visit the Governor, accompanied by 
* Par. pa. 723. 


81 


Raojee Kootness and others—that Nago came to Sattara 
in April, 1835, with a letter from the Governor of Goa, who 
was about to return to Portugal: that Nago then resided in 
the house of Narain Chittey, whence he used to go at night 
with Rowlojee Naik, Raojee Kootness, Hurry Punt Fatuk, 
the Senaputtee, and Dinkur Rao, to the ex-Raja, that he 
delivered the Governor’s letter, and having received money 
and presents from the ex-Raja, returned to Goa. 

He then states that the Viceroy of Goa, having had a 
dispute with the owner of the ship which he had engaged 
to take him to Portugal, had returned to Goa, and that 
Mahdoo Rao Sirkey was then introduced to him. 

That in January, 1835, by the direction of Nago, he 
wrote a letter in the name of the ex-Raja to the Viceroy on 
the subject of the marriage of Gojva Sahib, and affixed the 
Sicca and Mortub (large and small seal) to it with his own 
hand. 

That in October, 1835, Nago, accompanied by Rowlojee 
Naik, and Hurry Punt Fatuk, delivered a letter to the ex- 
Raja from the Viceroy, in the presence of the Senaputtee and 
Dinkur Rao, and that on this occasion the ex-Raja ordered 
a large sum to be paid to the Viceroy as a parting present, 
and that this sum was provided by hoondees on the firm of 
Tejeeram, a banker at Sattara; that with these bills Na«-o 

o 

set out for Goa, but was robbed of them on the road. Shortly 
afterwards the Viceroy departed for Portugal, and Nago, 
being without an employer, retired to Sawunt Warree, where 
he died. He also states, that during Nago’s life, he (Dajee 
Bulal VVaeed) had been in possession of the seals, but 
that after his death they were transferred to Balkoba Kel- 
kur, who was at the time of his examination at Sawunt 
Warree, and was still in possession of the seals and papers 
connected with the intrigue. 

He also mentions some swords and fans which he says 
were brought by Raojee Kootness from Goa as presents for 
the ex-Raja and his court, and professes to recognize a fan 
as one directed to be brought by Nago. 

G 


82 

In the letter accompanying the deposition of Dajee Bulal 
Waeed, Colonel Ovans informs the Bombay Government 
that Nago Deorao was dead, and that the other persons 
chiefly implicated in the alleged intrigue, with the excep¬ 
tion of Rowlojee Naik, the banker Tejeeram, and his son 
Bhugwan, had left Sattara. 

On the receipt of this information Colonel Ovans was 
directed to send a confidential person to Sawunt Warree 
furnished with a letter to the Collector of Rutnagherry, in 
order that a search might be made for the seals and docu¬ 
ments stated to be in the possession of Balkoba Kelkur, and 
also to inspect the books of Tejeeram, in order to verify the 
money transactions alleged to have taken place with his 
firm. Raojee Kootness was seized at Bombay, and for¬ 
warded under a military guard to Sattara, together with a 
number of documents found in his house at the time of 
his seizure. 

On receiving the instructions of the Bombay Govern¬ 
ment, Colonel Ovans sent a person named Ballaram Chu- 
prassee, accompanied by Dajee Waeed, to Sawunt Warree, 
in order to apprehend Balkoba Kelkur, and to obtain 
possession of the seals and papers stated by Dajee Bulal 
Waeed to be in the hands of that person. Previously how¬ 
ever to the arrival of these emissaries at Sawunt Warree, 
information had been received by the authorities at that 
place, that a body of men had assembled at the village of 
Pallee, in the Warree teritory, intending to attack the forts 
of Vingorla, Malwan, and Ranee, for the purpose of car- 
rying off treasure deposited there. 

In consequence of this information, five persons were 
apprehended by the chief of Sawunt Warree, and from 
their depositions it appeared that Nago Deorao had origi¬ 
nally been the leader of this gang, and that after his death 
men continued to be levied for the same purposes by Bal¬ 
koba Kelkur and others. On the discovery of the intended 
attack, Balkoba Kelkur concealed himself in a village near 
Sawunt Warree. 

On the arrival of the emissaries of Colonel Ovans, a ne- 


83 

gotiation was entered into between them and Balkoba Kel- 
kur, for the delivery of the seals and papers before alluded 
to. Alarmed lest he should be delivered up to justice on 
account of his connection with the intended attack upon 
Vingorla, Balkoba at first refused to come forward ; but 
on receiving a pledge of safety, a meeting took place be¬ 
tween him and the agents of Colonel Ovans. On being 
asked for the seals and papers, he at first alleged that they 
were destroyed, but afterwards admitted that they were 
still in existence, and stated that they had been pledged to 
defray the expenses of Nago Deorao’s funeral, and that he 
would deliver them up on receiving the sum of 500 rupees. 
Ultimately 400 rupees and a free pardon for his offence at 
Sawunt Warree were offered, and on these terms he con¬ 
sented to give up the papers. The sum of 400 rupees was 
accordingly paid to him, and he accompanied Ballaram 
Chuprassee and Dajee Bulal Waeed to Sattara. 

Moro Punt Josee, another of the parties implicated in 
this affair, was seized and taken to Rutnagherry, and after¬ 
wards forwarded to Sattara. 

On the 11th of November, 1837, Colonel Ovans made 
his report* to the Bombay Government, and sent there¬ 
with the depositions of a number of witnesses whom he 
had examined on the subject, and also translations of the 
papers produced by Balkoba Kelkur, and of those which 
had been forwarded from Bombay with Raojee Kootness. 

The evidence thus forwarded by Colonel Ovans has been 
arranged by Mr. Willoughby in twelve summaries of the 
portions of it applicable to the material facts of the case : and 
these portions of the evidence, as presenting the case against 
the ex-Raja in as strong a light as his accusers could succeed 
in placing it, will be considered separately. It will be seen 
that even by the one-sided evidence produced, not only 
is the ex-Raj as guilt unproved, but in some instances his 
innocence is clearly established by the very witnesses pro. 
duced against him. 

g 2 


Par. pa. 403. 


84 


The first* of these summaries contains the evidence 
showing what was the object and design of the Raja, in 
establishing and maintaining a correspondence with Goa. 

The evidence selected by Mr. Willoughby on this part 
of the case, is that of Hurry Punt Fatuk, Raojee Kootness, 
Balkoba Kelkur, Moro Bulal Josee, Narain Chittey, Govind 
Row Dewan, Wassoodew Shastry, Dajee Bulal Waeed, 
Moro Punt Putwurdhun, Purshotum, Abba Parusnees, and 
Vishnoo Punt Dewustuley. 

The following extracts from the evidence given by the 
first of these witnesses afford a fair sample of its general 
character. One may imagine what would have been the 
effect of a rigid cross-examination on the evidence of a per¬ 
son who contradicted himself and prevaricated as this per¬ 
son did in his examination in chief. 

He states^ that after the year 183*2, Nago Deorao had no 
meeting with the Raja of Sattara: that Raojee Kootness 
only had a meeting. Subsequently, however, we find him 
swearing as followsj :—“ Nago Deorao had no meeting, so 
I stated from forgetfulness; but 1 remember now that a 
meeting between Nago Deorao and the Raja did tahe place.’ 9 

Again he says :§—“ When Erculan and Raojee Kootness 
came to Sattara, I had an interview with the Raja; and 
when Nago Deorao had a meeting with the Raja in October , 
1835, I was with him. This was my fifth visit. There 
were present Dinkur Rao and Rowlojee Naik. I had five 
other interviews with the Raja for the affair of Goa—so I 
recollect, but for what purpose I do not remember .” So 
that, according to his last statement, he was present at a 
meeting between the Raja and Nago Deorao, which, in the 
first instance, he declared never took place at all; and he 
had no less than ten different interviews with the Raja on 
affairs connected with the Goa intrigue, the object of which, 
or of any of them, he had altogether forgotten. 

The evidence of Raojee Kootness, who states|| that he 


* Par. pa. 995. 

$ Par. pa. 753. 


X Par. pa. 750. 
|| Par. pa. 757. 


t Par. pa. 748. 


85 


was taken by Rowlojee Naik into the Raja’s palace by night, 
is distinctly contradicted by his alleged conductor, and 
though seized and thrown into prison, Rowlojee Naik per¬ 
sisted in his denial. His evidence, however, tended to ex¬ 
culpate the Raja, and was, therefore, of course, disbelieved 
by the Bombay Government. 

Similar attempts to those which had been successfully 
made in the case of Govind Row Dewan, were, at a later 
period, exerted to obtain a confession from Rowlojee Naik. 
The ex^Raja himself writes to his Vakeel in London, under 
date the 1st of May, 1842, in the following terms :— 

66 1 have received a communication from Rowlojee Naik 
Kasker, at Sattara, in which he informs me that an indivi¬ 
dual called on him on the part of Appa Sahib and Ballajee 
Punt Nattoo, and proposed that Rowlojee should give him 
a declaration on paper to the following purport: that he 
(Rowlojee) had been engaged as a subordinate agent in the 
pretended confederacy against the British power : that 
though he had been imprisoned by order of the Resident, 
he had not suffered any harsh treatment during his incar¬ 
ceration : that those who said he had been subjected to any 
harsh treatment during his confinement, were guilty of an 
untruth: that he had never complained, and never would 
complain of any such treatment. The same person added, 
that if Rowlojee would write this down, he should be re¬ 
stored to the same situation he formerly held, and should 
be paid all the arrears of his salary which had been accu¬ 
mulating ever since he had been imprisoned. Rowlojee 
then told him that he wanted neither the situation nor the 
salary: that he had never been engaged, in any manner 
whatever, in the pretended confederacy: that he had been 
seized and incarcerated by order of the Resident, Colonej 
Ovans, and been subjected to the greatest privations and 
sufferings, joined to taunts and insults: that though the 
Resident and Ballajee Punt Nattoo had made attempts to 
extort a similar declaration from him at the time he was 
suffering from the effects of his confinement, he had spurned 


86 


all the tempting offers they had made him, and was not now to 
be tampered with for their purposes: that as regarded him¬ 
self, Rowlojee said, if it suited his convenience, he would 
remain at Sattara, otherwise he would proceed, if I allowed 
him, to Benares; and if this were denied him, he would put 
an end to his existence by swallowing opium.” 

It may, perhaps, be said that this statement, as proceed¬ 
ing from the accused party, is entitled to no credit. It has, 
however, never been denied, much less disproved; and the 
severe treatment of Govind Row Dewan, and the manner 
in which his confession was extorted—the facts of which 
appear in Colonel Ovans’s own reports, render the truth of 
Rowlojee Naik’s statement at least probable. Measures 
which had met with success in the one case, would hardly 
have been left untried in the other. 

The third witness, Balkoba Kelkur, was, as we have seen, 
a leader of a gang of robbers, pardoned for the purpose of 
giving evidence against the Raja. Worthless as the evidence 
of a person of such character must be, the contradictory 
statements which he makes render it still more so. He 
states, # “ that Nago Deorao went to Goa. Having met 
Erkul, through the medium of Raojee Kootness, he came 
to Sattara. I stopped at Sunkeshwur.” And afterwards he 
says,^ that Ercul, Nago, himself, and Raojee Kootness, 
came to Sattara; but that Ercul, being displeased because 
no previous arrangements had been made for his reception, 
set out to proceed to Waee, and that Nago sent the witness 
to bring him back. Subsequently, however, he completely 
falsifies^ the above statement, for he says :— (( on the day 
Erculan came to Sattara, Nana Waeed (Nago) did not come. 
After Erculan had gone, Nana came and on being asked 
who sent him to bring back Ercul, he denies that Nago sent 
him, as he had originally sworn, but answers,§ “ Balum 
Bhut Moonjeykur took me—who told him I do not know.” 

The witness Moro Punt Josee admits || that he wrote no 

* Par. pa. 769. f Par. pa. 770. t Par. pa. 774. 

§ Par. pa. 771. || Par. pa. 778. 


87 

less than twelve of the letters produced as forming part of 
the correspondence between the ex-Raja and the Viceroy 
of Goa: some of those twelve beings or purporting to be 
letters from the ex-Raj a, and others from Don Manoel; 
so that this man, if his story is to be believed, was the con¬ 
fidential agent of both parties in the alleged intrigue. 
Had the ex-Raja’s judges not been predisposed to condemn 
him, the glaring absurdity of such a statement as this, 
must alone have been sufficient to render the whole story 
incredible. 

The evidence of Narain Chittey upon a very important 
point in the case, the alleged interview, in 1835, between 
the Raja and Nago Deorao and others, is directly contra¬ 
dicted by Rowlojee Naik, whose evidence, as we have seen, 
met with no credit. 

The statements of Govind Row, even had they not been 
recanted, as they were by that person, are rendered wholly 
worthless by the circumstances under which they were 
extorted from him. 

The whole of the passages cited* in this summary from 
the depositions of Wassoodew Shastry, Dajee Bulal Waeed, 
and Abba Parusnees, are founded on information obtained 
from other persons, a fact which renders them altogether 
useless against the Raja, and which Mr. Willoughby 
therefore carefully omits to state. 

The statements of Moro Punt Putwurdhun and Parsho- 
tumf do not in any way affect the ex-Raja; and the con¬ 
tradictions already pointed out in the evidence of the latter 
of these persons in the Joudpore case, are sufficient to 
deprive him of all credit as a witness. 

The deposition of Vishnoo Punt Dewustuley, as has 
already been shewn, was forged. 

The second of Mr. Willoughby’s summaries J contains 
the evidence that salaries were granted by the Raja of 
Sattara to the principal agents employed in the intrigues 


* Par. pa. 997. t Par. pa. 997. \ Par. pa. 998. 


88 


at Goa, and that they were paid from the shop of the 
Banker Tejeeram. 

The evidence adduced in support of the above facts, is 
that of the witnesses Wassoodew Shastry, Dajee Bulal 
Waeed, Sunjeewun, Kessoo Buburow, Tejeeram, Hurry 
Punt Fatuk, Raojee Kootness, Balkoba Kelkur, Moro 
Punt Josee, and Narain Bhut Chittey. 

The statements of the first four of these witnesses,* as 
cited by Mr. Willoughby, are, as indeed is by far the 
greater part of the voluminous evidence taken as to the 
Goa affair, mere hearsay; obtained chiefly from NagoDeo- 
rao, who, as has already been stated, was dead at the time 
the depositions were taken. If the object of those who 
prosecuted the charges against the ex-Raja was to throw 
difficulties in the way of future investigation, they could 
not have taken a better course for effecting their object 
than by the introduction of the mass of irrelevant matter 
which the Sattara papers display. That Mr. Willoughby 
should have introduced this so-called evidence into the 
summaries so highly praised by Sir Robert Grant, is a 
plain proof of his sense of the weakness of his case: but 
that he should have omitted to state that it was founded 
entirely on the information of other parties, leaving the 
reader to infer that the witnesses were deposing to facts of 
their own knowledge, was, to say the least of it, most unfair 
towards the ex-Raja. 

The evidence of Tejeeram, cited by Mr. Willoughby in 
his second summary, is of little more weight than those of 
the preceding four witnesses, as affecting the ex-Raja. 
He statesf that salaries are entered in his books— 


“To Balum Bhut.150Rs. 

To Balkoba Kelkur .150Rs. 

To Moro Punt Josee:..150Rs.,” 


and that Nago Deorao, Hurry Punt Phatuk, and Narain 
Bhut Chittey received cash for expenses, and that the 
money to answer these disbursements was brought to his 
* Par. pa. 998, 999. 


t Par. pa. 999. 





89 

house from Rowlojee Naik and invested in the feigned 
names of Doordajee and Soopajee. On being asked whence 
Rowlojee Naik obtained these funds,, he says,* “It may be¬ 
long to the Surkar (Raja): such is my persuasion; and 
Hurry Punt Fatuk, Narain Chittey, and Nago Deorao said 
to me that the Maharaj gave the cash/ 5 

Much stress was laid by the ex-Raj a’s accusers upon the 
evidence afforded by the books of Tejeeram and his son. 
There is nothing, however* in these accounts which, of itself, 
in the slightest degree implicates his Highness. Nago 
Deorao^s gang say that the money entered in these books 
came from the ex-Raj a, through Rowlojee Naik, who, how¬ 
ever, denies the fact altogether, and is of course disbelieved 
by the Bombay Government. But what is more probable 
than that a band of men, such as Nago and his followers, 
at one time gaining a subsistence by trading in clothes and 
horses, at another by robbery, should have found it very 
convenient to employ a banker who would not be too cu¬ 
rious about the characters of his customers, and who would 
not object to the entries in his books being made under 
false names; or that the debits and credits of fifteen persons, 
during a period of eight years, should have amounted to 
between £3000 and £4000 ? As to the source from which 
Nago obtained his funds, there can be little doubt that they 
in fact proceeded from the Swamee. Bhugwan, indeed, 
says,f that on his questioning Hurry Punt Fatuk on the 
subject, he (Hurry Punt) used to say, “This business be¬ 
longs to Simkeracharia Swamee.^ He also says, that his 
father, Tejeeram, went to the Swamee to get money on 
loan. 

It is observable, also, that Tejeeram had formerly become 
a bankrupt, and had been compelled by the ex-Raj a to 
surrender certain property which he was fraudulently en¬ 
deavouring to conceal from his creditors, and that his 
statements, cited in this summary, are directly contradicted 
by Rowlojee Naik. 


Par. pa. 741 . 


t Par. pa. 726. 


90 


Hurry Punt Fatuk, after stating the amount of the 
salaries paid to Nago and his party, adds,* ec so Nago men¬ 
tioned to me.” In Mr. Willoughby’s summary, however, 
the statement of Hurry Punt Fatuk is inserted as if made 
of his own knowledge. 

Hurry Punt Fatuk also differs from Balkoba Kelkur in 
the amount of the salaries given to the different persons. 
Thus he statesf that Raojee Kootness and Ercul had an 
allowance of 350 rupees each, and Moogdum an allowance 
of 500 rupees: whereas Balkoba Kelkur fixes J the salaries 
of these three persons at 400 rupees each. 

Raojee Kootness states no§ more than that when he first 
became acquainted with Nago Deorao, and engaged to aid 
him in the Goa business, Nago promised him an annual 
allowance of 600 rupees. 

The character of Balkoba Kelkur has already been ob¬ 
served upon. His statements, as to the salaries, are of no 
value whatever; as, like those of the preceding witnesses, 
they must have been founded on information derived from 
others. 

The statement of Moro Punt Josee does not in any man¬ 
ner implicate the ex-Raj a as the person from whom the 
salaries proceeded, and Narain Chittey merely states that 
by means of Nago a salary of 150 rupees was settled on 
him. 

The third summary || contains the evidence showing that 
the expenses of Nago and his party were defrayed by the 
Raja of Sattara: that the funds advanced for that purpose 
were fictitiously entered in the books of a banker at Sattara, 
and that, on various occasions, valuable presents were made 
by the Raja, or on his account, to Don Manoel, the 
Governor of Goa, and to Nago Deorao and the other agents 
employed in conducting the intrigue. 

The witnesses, from whose depositions extracts are 
made by Mr. Willoughby for the purpose of proving these 

* Par. pa. 750. t Par. pa. 748. t Par. pa. 7?0. 

$ Par. pa. 999. || Par. pa. 1000. 


91 

facts, are Bhugwan, Tejeeram, Hurry Punt Fatuk, Balkoba 
Kelkur, Narain Chittey, Wassoodew Shastry, Govind Row 
Dewan, Dajee Bulal Waeed, Khundoo Venkutch, Lux- 
umun Nagesh, Sunjeewun, Kessoo Buburow, Avjee bin 
Peerajee, Sukhojee bin Limbajee, Hybuttee bin Jotiajee, 
Pattoo bin Sooltanjee, Nilloo Abbajee, Raojee Kootness, 
and Moro Punt Josee. 

The substance of the evidence of Tejeeram and his son, 
cited in this summary, amounts to no more than that money 
belonging to Rowlojee Naik, a servant of the ex-Raj a, was 
deposited in their bank under fictitious names ;* and even 
this is contradicted by Rowlojee Naik himself, f Neither 
of these witnesses ventures to swear that the money pro¬ 
ceeded from the ex-Raj a. All that Bhugwan says as to this, 
is, that the persons who brought the money to the bank 
being poor, the whole of it could not belong to them:— 
“ Some small sums may be theirs, the rest of the money 
may he of the Maharaj ?’ and again,—“ The Maharaj caused 
the money to be paid, through Rowlojee Naik, on account 
of the Goa affair, and he gave it, so it appears, and Narain 
Chittey and Hurry Punt Fatuh signified to me in the same 
way.” 

As to the Hoondees alleged to have been given to Nago 
Deorao on the occasion of his last visit to Goa, Bhugwan 
states as follows:{—“I gave hoondees to Nago Deorao on 
Bombay to the amount of 4000 rupees, in the year Sukey 
(1835-36). They were lost: so Nago Deorao having sent 
to say, other hoondees were issued, into whose hands they 
were given appears in the book; they were delivered to 
Dajeeba Waeed.” Afterwards, however, in answer to the 
fourteenth§ question, he directly contradicts this statement, 
and says that the “hoondees were not delivered to Dajeeba 
Waeed, hut were sent.” 

With reference to the sums entered in the bank books 
under the fictitious names of Soopajee and Doorjadee, 

* Par. pa. 1001. t Par. pa. 734. t Par. pa. 72G. $ Par. pa. 727. 


92 

Bhugwan states* that those rupees were brought by him 
from Rowlojee Naik’s house—afterwards he states f that 
he had gone with Hurry Fatuk and Narain Chittey near 
the house of Rowlojee Naik, and had sat down outside., 
while they went into the house and brought rupees to the 
bank—and on being asked how he reconciles these two 
statements with the entry in the books, which describes all 
the sums as having been “brought by Bhugwan from 
Doorde and Soopajee” he declares X that it was not true 
that rupees were only brought forward once, but that once 
or twice he himself brought them from Rowlojee’s house, 
and that he also went several times with Fatuk and Chittey. 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk was with much difficulty § induced 
to admit that he had sometimes taken money from Row¬ 
lojee’s Naik’s house, and Rowlojee Naik himself positively 
denies \\ the whole story. 

Tejeeram says, “ It (the money) may belong to the 
Sirkar (Raja): such is my persuasion: and Hurry Punt 
and Narain Chittey and Nago informed me the Maharaj 
gave the cashand again, “ For the most part the money 
disposed of belonged to the Sirkar (Raja). So it appears 
to me.” 

The remarks already made upon the evidence of Hurry 
Punt Fatuk shew that his statements deserve little credit. 

The evidence of Wassoodew Shastry as to the presents 
given by the ex-Raj a to Nago and his party, is, as we have 
seen, founded solely on information alleged to have been 
obtained from Balkoba Kelkur and Vishnoo Punt Dewus- 
tuley, the latter of whom denies all knowledge of the affair. 
Not one word, however, appears in the passage cited by 
Mr. Willoughby, which would lead one to suppose that 
these were hearsay statements. 

Dajee Bulal Waeed professes to give his account of the 
sums given to Nago from his own observation, a circum¬ 
stance which Mr. Willoughby does not fail to record. 

* Par. pa. 726. t Ibid. t Par. pa. 727. 

§ Par. pa. 751, 753 || Par. pa. 733. 


93 


Referring, however, to the deposition of Dajee Bulal 
Waeed, we find him stating as follows :* “ In April, 1835, 

Nago came to Sattara, and I accompanied him. He 
brought a letter from Don Manoel, and after we were 
asleep , he went at night to the Maharaj and delivered the 
letter.” He then goes on to mention certain sums which 
he alleges were given to Nago, and a diamond ring which 
was presented to Raojee Kootness. So much for the facts 
which this witness swears to as from his own observation. 

The passages cited from the evidence of Khundoo Ven- 
kutsh and Luxumun Nagesh, do not in the slightest de¬ 
gree implicate the ex-Raj a, and those taken from the 
statements of Sunjeewun and Kessoo Buburow, are entirely 
hearsay. 

Avjee bin Peerajee states,f “ When Nago Deorao went 
to Rybunder, he took a horse from Sattara, which was 
given to Don Manoel: there I saw that horse: previously 
also, a large horse was taken from Sattara, and given to 
Don Manoel. So I heard.” 

With regard to this present of a horse, Colonel Ovans 
in his statement of the charges against the ex-Raj a, 
assumes J as one of the facts proved, that it was sent by 
his Highness to Don Manoel. Far from establishing, how¬ 
ever, that this was the case, the depositions of the different 
witnesses examined on the subject prove, if such contradic¬ 
tory and hearsay stories can prove anything at all, that 
this horse was not only not sent by the ex-Raj a, but that 
it was the property of, and paid for by, the Swamee of 
Sunkeshwur, the real employer of Nago and his party. 
The name of the ex-Raj a, as the sender of the present, 
does not appear in one of these depositions. 

Pattoo binSooltanjee says,§ “a horse having been bought 
at Pimpree, was taken as far as Araba; that I saw : from 
thence it was given to the Viceroy of Goa: whether it 
was paid for, or given gratis, is not known to me.” 

* Par. pa. 723. t Par. pa. 735. $ Par pa. 1065. 

§ Par pa. 743. 


94 


Nilloo Abbajee states* “ Narain Chittey also mentioned 
the affair about Goa , thus: e a horse brought Tor the 
purpose of being given there was despatched, and Raojee 
Kootness and Erculan having come here, met the Maharaj 
at night; that matter I spoke through the medium of 
Abba Josee to Robertson Sahib.” 

Abbajee Narain Josee deposesj* that the last-named 
witness gave him a sealed letter; and of its having been 
given to him, he informed Robertson Sahib at night: and 
told him that he (Nilloo Abbajee) said that the contents of 
it were about a horse which Nago Deorao [was about to 
take to Goa: and that Robertson Sahib said, (C Why 
should the lukhota (sealed letter) be opened ? return it to 
him who gave itwhich was accordingly done. 

Nillo Abbajee^s professed acquaintance with the con¬ 
tents of the sealed letter affords a strong proof that the 
story connected with it was concerted by these persons— 
the enemies of the ex-Raj a leave this very suspicious cir¬ 
cumstance entirely unnoticed. 

Ballajee PuntNattoo saysj that some one gave General 
Robertson information regarding the horse and other 
presents alleged to have been sent on the part of the ex- 
Raj a to the Viceroy of Goa, and that he was accordingly 
desired by General Robertson to speak to his Highness on 
the subject. He has not, however, any recollection of the 
date or even of the year in which this occurred. 

But what says General Robertson to all this? With 
regard to the evidence of Ballajee Punt Nattoo, we find 
him declaring, in a speech delivered at the East India 
House on the 16th of July, 1841, that not one word of it 
was true: and the following is an extract from a speech 
delivered by him at the East-India House in the year 
1840 

“ I patiently listened to reports ; I received them as 
communications of importance, and with commendations 
of the valuable services of my informants: but time and 


* Par pa. 746. 


J Par. pa. 819. 


t Ibid. 


95 


many casual circumstances enabled me to appreciate those 
reports at their due worthy and to feel convinced that they 
were generally little better - than malicious fabrications, 
and that any truth that they contained was sadly alloyed 
with falsehood. 

“ It is but just to the Raja to mention these facts, for 
they will show that he was environed by enemies, and 
will afford a key to all that has since occurred/ 5 

Testimony such as this, proceeding as it does from a 
source uninfluenced by motives for or against the ex-Raj a, 
is alone sufficient to refute far stronger evidence than 
that of Ballajee Punt Nattoo and his creatures: nor 
should the circumstance be unnoticed that Abbajee Narain 
Josee is a relation of Ballajee Punt Nattoo, and that Na¬ 
rain Chittey, from whom Nilloo Abbajee professed to have 
received his information, was one of the same tribe: and 
yet Ballajee Punt Nattoo would wish it to be believed 
that these creatures of his own gave him no information 
of these alleged intrigues, but left him to gain his first 
knowledge of them from the Resident. 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk states,* that his son, Nana Fatuk, 
said to him, that as the Governor Sahib wanted a horse, a 
horse was purchased for 400 sicca rupees, and given to the 
Governor; and afterwards,t he says, that Nago Deorao 
desired Nana Fatuk to buy the horse, and that he bought 
it at the village of Pimpree for 400 sicca rupees; that hons 
(pagodas) were brought from the Swamee of Sunkeshwur, 
so Nana Fatuk said t the cash was derived from the hons; 
the hons were disposed of at the shop of Tejeeram, and an 
entry might be forthcoming at his shop: but whether 
Nago took the hons from the Swamee and gave them to 
Nana Fatuk, or whether the Swamee gave them to Nana 
Fatuk, and what number of them was given, Nana did not 
mention. That Nana delivered the horse in charge of 
Balkoba Kelkur, but that he (Hurry Bulal Fatuk) did not 
recollect the particulars as to where it was made over. 

* Par. pa. 747. t Par. pa. 749. 


96 


That the horse was taken to Sunkeshwur, and thence to 
Goa by Balkoba Kelkur to be given to the Governor: cc the 
horse was given to the Governor, so I have heard ; at the 
time of giving the horse, who were present is not known 
to me.” 

The whole of this statement, amounting as it does to no 
more than that a horse had been purchased and sent to the 
Governor of Goa by the orders of the Swamee of Sunkesh- 
wur, rests entirely on information obtained from Nana 
Fatuk, who, like many others of the parties alleged to have 
been principally concerned in the intrigue, was dead at the 
time of the witnesses examination. 

Balkoba Kelkur swears,* that the Swamee gave Nago 
300 hons, and that as a horse did not arrive for the pur¬ 
pose of being presented, Nana Fatuk, having received the 
300 hons, was sent to purchase one. That Nana Fatuk 
having bought a horse at Pimpree for 450 rupees (Hurry 
Bulal Fatuk having stated that it was purchased for 400 
rupees), he and the witness went with it to Rybunder, but 
that the visit to the Governor had already been made : and 
that the horse was taken afterwards to the stables of the 
Governor, and tied there. 

The evidence of this witness, therefore, unworthy of 
notice as it is for the reasons already mentioned^ proves, 
if it proves anything, that the horse was sent by the 
Swamee. 

It is observable, too, that though Balkoba Kelkur states 
that 300 hons were received from the Swamee, the entry in 
Tejeeranf’s books, said to relate to this transaction is of 249 
hons only. 

Moro Julal Josee says,f “ at the time of leaving the Desh 
(country), we (himself and Nago) took a horse with us, 
which was given to Moogdum. The Waeed (Nago) wrote 
and gave a letter to Don Manoel , in the name of the Ma- 
harajP 

The statement as to the letter is as might be expected, 
* Par. pa. 769. t Par, pa. 774. 


97 

omitted in Mr. Willoughby’s summary. It certainly is 
not calculated to improve the case against the ex-Raja. 

Raojee Kootness states* merely, that a horse was taken 
and presented to the Viceroy, and on being subsequently 
questioned more particularly as to the circumstance, he 
states,f that he does not recollect the date of the present 
being made, but that lie had been told by Nago that the 
horse was brought from the Desh (country). 

This is the only evidence noticed by Mr. Willoughby, 
with reference to the alleged present of the horse to the 
Governor of Goa. He has left unnoticed the depositions 
of the witnesses, Rajaram Bhut Moondley and Pandoo- 
rung Rao, for reasons, which a perusal of the following 
extracts from those depositions will readily suggest. The 
first of these witnesses states, { that once, when he was 
with the Swamee, Nago Deorao visited his house at Sawunt 
Warree; that Nago had always one or two horses with 
him, and was in the habit of visiting Goa: that Atmaram 
Prabhoo once asked the witness whether he was acquainted 
with the object of Nana (Nago Deorao) coming to and 
going from Goa, and that the witness said he was not. 
That when he met Nago, he asked him the question which 
Atmaram Prabhoo had asked: then Nago Deorao said,— 
“ I bring horses , 8fc. and sell them to the Maharaj 
( Viceroy) of Goa, what should I do by sitting idly .” 

Pandoorung Rao states,§ that Nago Deorao Waeed was 
in the habit of frequenting Goa and its neighbourhood, 
and was lodged in the residence of the Viceroy when de¬ 
ponent was at Goa. At this time a bay horse with a white 
nose, was brought as a present to the Viceroy from above 
the Ghauts, and as deponent was informed by Nago 
Deorao’s servants, had been 'purchased by the Swamee of 
Sunkeshwur , for 600 rupees , as a present to the Viceroy . 

So much for the evidence, which Colonel Ovans does not 
hesitate to say, proves that a horse was sent by the Raja 
of Sattara to the Viceroy. The fact of other presents 
* Par. pa. 755. t Par. pa. 761. t Par. pa. 823. § Par. pa. 754. 


H 


98 


haying been sent by his Highness to Goa, rests on the 
statements of Raojee Kootness, Balkoba Kelkur, and 
Hurry Bulal Fatuk. The first of these witnesses states,* 
that on the occasion of the interview with the Governor of 
Goa, Nago Deorao took with him a pair of white shawls , 
one square shawl, one pearl necklace worth about 600 ru¬ 
pees, one kulgee worth about 200 or 250, being in all 
worth about 1100 rupees , and gave them to Don Manoel. 

Balkoba Kelkur’s account of the presents alleged to 
have been given on this occasion, differs materially, both 
as to the value and description of the articles, from that 
given by Raojee Kootness. He says,t—Having taken 
articles as presents from Sattara, from the Maharaj for the 
Governor, Nana Fatuk, and Nana Waeed (Nago) came 
to Sunkeshwur in the month of Chytroo (April). The 
articles were as follows:—Two pairs of shawls, red, one 
square shawl—one kulgee or ornament for the turban— 
one pearl necklace, amounting together in value to about 
2000 rupees . The only important part of this statement, 
the assertion that these articles were sent from the Ma¬ 
haraj to the Governor, is not founded on the witnesses own 
authority, but on information obtained from Nago Deorao. 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk states,J that in (1828-29) Nago 
Deorao came to his house bringing 3000 rupees, and re¬ 
quested him to purchase jewels and pairs of shawls : and 
that on being asked who wanted the jewels and shawls, he 
said, “ the Swamee wants themP That the shawls were 
then purchased by Nana Fatuk by means of Tejeeram. 
That afterwards Nago went to Goa, and on his arrival 
there, gave to Don Manoel, the Governor, a pair of 
shawls, a roomal, a diamond ring , a shirpench , and a pearl 
necklace. 

Of the three witnesses, therefore, whose evidence is cited 
by Mr. Willoughby and Sir R. Grant,§ as proving that 
presents were sent by the ex-Raja to the Viceroy, and 


* Par. pa. 754. 
$ Par. pa. 747. 


t Par. pa. 769. 

§ Par. pa. 131, para. 97. 


99 

which evidence Sir R. Grant describes* as being of a most 
convincing nature, no two agree as to the nature of the 
articles sent; and the statement of Balkoba Kelkur differs 
essentially from that of Raojee Kootness as to the value 
and description of the presents, and from that of Hurry 
Bulal Fatuk as to the person by whom they were provided. 

The fourth summary contains evidence,f to shew that 
certain articles were sent as presents from Goa, and how 
they were disposed of. 

The evidence cited by Mr. Willoughby under this head 
is of too contemptible a nature to require any examination. 
It was not, indeed, without reason, that Sir Robert Grant 
himself observed}: upon it,—“ that he did not attach much 
importance to this branch of the inquiry, for the articles 
alluded to were few and of inconsiderable value, and it 
might even be doubted whether the chief of them were not 
articles commissioned by Govind Rao Dewan, although 
Raojee Kootness afterwards refused to accept payment for 
them. It was not established that any of the articles 
reached the Raja, for it was impossible to trust Dajeeba 
Waeed’s unsupported testimony, founded on hearsay, that 
two of the peacock’s feather fans were presented to his 
Highness.” That such trash as the passages cited in this 
summary, should have ever been recorded as evidence by 
Colonel Ovans, and classified by Mr. Willoughby, affords 
further proof, if more were necessary, of the determination 
of the Bombay Government to leave no means untried to 
effect the Raja’s ruin. 

The fifth summaryJ relates to Nago Deorao’s intercourse 
with the Raja of Sattara, and the different interviews and 
conferences which occurred between them. 

The evidence cited upon these points is that of Was- 
soodew Shastry, Dajee Bulal Waeed, Sunjewun, Avjee bin 
Peerajee, Suckajee bin Limbajee, Yenkuppa Powar, Hy- 
buttee bin Jotiajee, Tejeeram, Pattoo bin Soltanjee, Khun- 

* Par. pa. 131, para. 94. 
t Par. pa. 132, para. 108. 

H 2 


t Par. pa. 1009. 
§ i J ar. pa. 1009, 


100 


dojee bin Sookajee, Bhugwan, Khundoo Venkutsh, Hurry 
Punt Fatuk, Raojee Kootness, Balkoba Kelkur, Narain 
Chittey, and Govind Row Dewan. 

With regard to the statements made by the first three 
of these persons, they are, as we have seem, founded wholly 
on hearsay; though, as in other instances, Mr. Willoughby’s 
quotations infer that they were speaking of facts which had 
occurred under their own observation; and in addition to 
thisj the facts stated by Dajee Bulal Waeed are flatly con¬ 
tradicted by Rowlojee Naik. Of the remaining thirteen 
witnesses,, six were servants of Nago Deorao, and com¬ 
pletely under the influence of his party. Tejeeram states 
that Nago Deorao, Hurry Punt Fatuk, and Narain Chittey, 
used to visit the Raja. He does not, however, profess to 
have accompanied them on any of these visits, and his in¬ 
terrogators took good care not to shake his evidence, by 
asking him how his information was obtained. 

Bhugwan and Khundoo Yenkutsh say nothing what¬ 
ever as to the alleged meetings with the Raja; and Hurry 
Punt Fatuk, in addition to the objections already ad¬ 
vanced against his testimony, states in the passage now 
cited from his deposition, that he had only five interviews 
with the Raja on the Goa affair, having previously, as 
we have seen, sworn to ten. Besides this, he differs from 
Raojee Kootness in his account of the persons present at 
some of the alleged meetings: for he says,* that at his 
second and third interviews, his son Nana Fatuk was pre¬ 
sent among others, which Raojee Kootnessf denies. 

The statements of Raojee Kootness, and Balkoba Kel- 
kur are, as has already been observed, contradicted by 
Rowlojee Naik; and in opposition to the evidence of Narain 
Chittey, Dajee Bulal Waeed, and Raojee Kootness, who all 
depose to inteviews between the ex-Raja and Nago Deorao, 
in the months of March and October, 1835, we have a 
statement of Mr. Dunlop, political agent in the Southern 
Mahratta Country, in a letter J to the Bombay Govern¬ 
ment, dated the 29th November, 1837, that after the de- 
* Par. pii. 1011. t Par pa. 1013. $ Par. pa. 825. 


101 


tection of Nago Deorao by Colonel Robertson, in 1831, 
Nago Deorao was never suffered to return to Sattara, but 
continued to live in Goa until his death in 1836. Now as 
Colonel Robertson left Sattara in the year 1832, the 
alleged interviews, unless the more than doubtful testimony 
adduced in support of them is to be considered more en¬ 
titled to credit than the above statement of Mr. Dunlop, 
could not have taken place. 

The sixth summary* contains evidence regarding Nago 
Deorao’s intercourse with Goa, and his various meetings 
with Don Manoel. 

That some intercourse took place between the Viceroy of 
Goa and Nago Deorao as a trader in horses, or as an emis¬ 
sary of the Swamee of Sunkeshwur, may be conceded, but 
it is confidently denied that the evidence selected by 
Mr. Willoughby affords any proof that Nago was acting at 
Goa on the part of the ex-Raj a of Sattara. Raojee Koot- 
ness is indeed represented by Mr. Willoughby as stating, 
of his own knowledge, and as if he had been present, the 
conversation which took place on Nago’s first introduction 
to the Viceroy, and in the course of which Nago represents 
himself as the Rajahs agent: but on referring to the depo¬ 
sition of Raojee Kootnessf we find that he was not present 
at this meeting, and that his information was obtained 
from Erculan, who, it should be observed, though still 
living, has never been examined. 

Sir Robert Grant lays some stress J upon the evidence 
given by Moro Bulal Josee at Rutnagherry, as proving 
that Nago was in the pay of the Raja of Sattara; and cites 
the following passage from his deposition,—“Nago Deorao 
is my brother-in-law. He was in the habit of visiting the 
Goa territory, and acted as the agent of the Sunker Acharya 
Cthe SwameeJ. Nago was in affluent circumstances: he 
got some money from Sattara, from Tejeeram, through 
whom I heard it was remitted by his Highness the Raja of 
Sattara. He also got some from the Swamee.” Sir 
* Par. pa. 1012. f Par. pa. 755. | Par. pa. 131. 


102 


Robert Grants therefore, gives more weight to the hearsay* 
statement of money having been received by Nago from 
the ex-Raj a, than to the positive declaration of the same 
witness that he acted as the agent of the Swamee. 

The seventh summary* professes to contain evidence in 
illustration of the proceedings of Raojee Kootness, being 
extracts from the depositions of Raojee Kootness himself. 
Hurry Punt Fatuk, Balkoba Kelkur, Narain Chittey, 
Bhugwan, Sukhojee bin Limbajee, Pattoo bin Soltanjee, 
Tejeeram, and Govind Row Dewan. 

Raojee Kootness,f after stating the manner in which his 
acquaintance with Nago Deorao commenced, proceeds to 
relate the particulars of several interviews which he pro¬ 
fesses to have had with the ex-Raj a, in the course of which 
conversations took place, showing that Nago was employed 
as the Raja’s agent in conducting some secret intrigue with 
the Goa authorities. We have seen, however, that, in enu¬ 
merating the persons present at these alleged interviews, 
his evidence essentially differs from that of Hurry Bulal 
Fatuk, who also professes to have been present, and that 
Rowlojee Naik, who, he alleges, was on more than one oc¬ 
casion his conductor to the Raja’s palace, denies his story 
altogether. 

Balkoba Kelkur states, that in March, 1835, Raojee 
Kootness had two interviews with the Raja, through 
Rowlojee. He however was not present on these occasions, 
and the hearsay statement of a man of the character of 
Balkoba Kelkur, is, or ought to be, of no weight against 
the positive denial of Rowlojee Naik. Narain Chittey, as 
shewn by the letter of Mr. Dunlop, before alluded to, had 
already pexjured himself with regard to the alleged inter¬ 
views between Nago and the Raja, in 1835; and his 
evidence, therefore, opposed to that of Rowlojee Naik, 
deserves little credit. 

Bhugwan, Sukhojee, Pattoo, and Tejeeram, merely de¬ 
pose to the fact of Raojee Kootness having visited Sattara. 

* Par. pa. 1013. f Par. pa. 754. 


103 

The evidence cited by Mr. Willoughby in this summary, 
contradictory as it is in itself, and proceeding from witnesses 
of notoriously bad character, can hardly be considered 
very conclusive: more especially when it is remembered 
that, with the exception of a few questions put to them by 
Colonel Ovans, more for the purpose of drawing out ad¬ 
ditional evidence against the Raja, than of testing the truth 
of their original statements, the witnesses were never cross- 
examined at all; yet we find that Sir Robert Grant, in his 
minute of the 5th of May, 1838,*—“Does not think that, 
supported by such evidence, the slightest doubt can be en¬ 
tertained of the nature of the communications held by 
Raojee Kootness with the Rajaand concludes by ob¬ 
serving, that “the two last meetings between the parties 
happened about the very time when, through other agents, 
the Raja was engaged in tampering with the native officers 
of the 23rd Regiment.” It is singular that, in making this 
observation. Sir R. Grant should not have been struck 
with the strangeness of the circumstance that, though 
these treasonable undertakings were going on at the same 
time, and with the same object, the very existence of the 
one should be wholly unknown to the agents employed in 
the other. 

The eighth summaryf contains the evidence relating to 
the alleged mission of Erculan from Goa to Sattara, and 
his introduction at night to the Raja. 

Under this head are cited passages from the evidence of 
Dajee Bulal Waeed, Sunjewun, Avjee bin Peerajee, Yen- 
kuppa Powar, Sukhojee bin Limbajee, Ilybuttee bin Joti- 
ajee, Tejeeram, Pattoo bin Sooltanjee, Hurry Bulal Fatuk, 
Raojee Kootness, Balkoba Kelkur, Moro Punt Josee, 
Narain Chittey, Wassoodew Shastry, and Kassee Punt 
B undry. 

The evidence of Dajee Bulal Waeed and Wassoodew 
Shastry, on this point, is, as admitted by Sir R. Grant,J of 
little value, as both speak only from hearsay. Mr. Wil- 
* Par. pa. 134. f Par. pa. 1015. * Par. pa. 135. 


104 


loughby, however, in this, as in numerous other instances, 
some of which have been already pointed out, introduces 
their evidence as if made from their own knowledge. The 
same objection applies to the passage cited from the depo¬ 
sition of Sunjeewun, who merely states,* that when he was 
detained by sickness at the village of Ranavee, he heard 
that Irkool Christian, Raojee Kootness, and Nago Deorao 
had come from Goa, on the part of the Governor, to Sat- 
tara, and had returned;—to the statement of Avjee bin 
Peerajee, who says,j* as to the alleged mission of Erculan, 
—“ On the first occasion when Nana (Nago Deorao) came 
to Sattara, he (Erculan) came, but he was not with us: 
however, he came to Sattara, so I heard f ’—and to that 
of Sukhojee bin Limbajee, who says,J on being asked whe¬ 
ther he ever saw Erculan,—“ I did not see him;, but I heard 
that there was some Irkool.” 

Venkuppa Powar, Hybuttee bin Jotiajee and Pattoo bin 
Sooltanjee, three menials in the service of Nago Deorao, 
state simply that Irkool, on one occasion, came to Sattara. 

The bankrupt Tejeeram states,§ that Ercul came from 
Goa with Nago Deorao, and others of the party, to Ko- 
dowly: that he, Tejeeram, went to Kodowly on a visit to 
Nago Deorao; that he went to Hurry Punt Fatuk, and 
then saw Ercul. He afterwards, on being again questioned 
as to the place at which he first saw Ercul, contradicts his 
first statement, and says,|| that he first saw him at Pallee, 
with Raojee Kootness. 

In addition to the discrepancies already pointed out 
between the evidence of Hurry Punt Fatuk, and Raojee 
Kootness, on other parts of the case, we find the latter of 
these witnesses^ stating, that, previously to the mission of 
Erculan to Sattara, Nago Deorao sent a letter of the Raja 
to the Viceroy Sahib, to send Erculan to the Raja; whereas 
Hurry Bulal Fatuk says,** on being asked whether any such 
letter was sent, “That Erculan and Raojee Kootness should 

* Par. pa. 1015. f Par. pa. 735. * Par. pa. 736. 

§ Par. pa. 741. || Par. pa. 742. IT Par. pa. 763. ** Par. pa. 750 


105 


come to Sattara, to this effect no letter from the Maharaj 
went.” These two witnesses likewise differ materially in their 
accounts of the conversation which took place on the occasion 
of Erculan 5 s introduction to the Raja. 

Enough has already been said to show that no credit 
is due to the evidence of Balkoba Kelkur: but even in 
the passage cited here by Mr. Willoughby from his depo¬ 
sition, we find him again prevaricating and contradicting 
himself: for he states* explicitly that “ Nana Fatuk did 
not wish Nago to accompany Erculan to Sattara, but he 
did so;” and then immediately afterwards, recollecting no 
doubt that this was not according to the preconcerted 
story, he corrects himself, and says that Nago did not 
accompany Erculan, but arrived at Sattara the day after 
he left: and on being again questionedf on this point, he 
repeats, that “ after Erculan had gone, Nana Waeed (Nago) 
came/ 5 Yet we find that Yenkuppa Powar and Hybuttee 
bin Jotiajee,two of Nago’s servants, assert J that Nago and 
Irkool met at Sattara. 

The evidence of Moro Punt Josee has already been com¬ 
mented upon in the remarks made upon Mr. Willoughby’s 
first summary, and in addition it should be observed, that 
the passage now cited by Mr. Willoughby from his depo¬ 
sition is a hearsay statement, and that it does not appeal’ 
from what source his information was obtained. 

Narain Chittey was not present at the alleged introduc¬ 
tion of Erculan to the ex-Raj a, and his evidence upon that 
subject is derived solely from information received from 
Nago Deorao and others. 

Kassee Punt Bundrey says § “ The treasonable plot with 
Goa is by means of Nago Deorao and Rowlojee Naik. 
From Goa a Christian and a Senvy came to Sattara. 
Hurry Punt Fatuk and Narain Chittey were engaged in 
this affair: their meetings were at the shop and house of 

* Par. pa. 1017. t Par. pa. 774. f Par. pa. 737, 733. 

§ Par. pa, 1018. 


106 


Tejeeram: their dealings must have been through his 
means : “ so it was understood .” 

This person had formerly, in the year 1820, made a 
representation to Captain Grant, the political agent at 
Sattara, that the Raja was meditating treasonable designs 
against the British Government; and in reporting on this 
matter, Captain Grant* remarks, “ the person who gave 
me this information is Kassee Punt Bundrey, a Brahmin 
who is remarkable for his vigour, activity, and intriguing 
disposition and in the same report, after noticing a 
proposal which had been made to him by the ex-Raja, 
and which he had thought right to discountenance, he 
proceeds: “ The Raja with a sincerity there is no mis¬ 
taking, assured me that he had not foreseen anything of 
the nature I had mentioned; that if he had, he would 
have been as ready as I could be to deprecate any pro¬ 
ceeding which could occasion a shadow of displeasure in 
the British Government.” 

The above, with the exception of an alleged letter from 
the ex-Raja to Don Manoel, and which will be noticed in 
considering the documentary part of the evidence relating 
to this affair, is the whole of the evidence contained in this 
summary: the hearsay statements of Ramchunder Gun- 
gadhur Josee and Abba Parusnees, who as we have seen 
was dismissed from his employment in the Adawlut for 
receiving bribes, are too contemptible to be noticed. 

The ninth summaryf contains the evidence relating to 
the mission of Mahdoo Rao Sirkey to Goa, and his intro¬ 
duction to Don Manoel. 

The evidence upon this point is selected from the depo¬ 
sitions of Govind Row Dewan, Narain Chittey, Hurry 
Bulal Fatuk, Raojee Kootness, Balkoba Kelkur, Moro 
Punt Josee, and Dajee Bulal Waeed. 

The statement of Govind Row Dewan, worthless as it is 
for the reasons already stated, rests solely on hearsay—“He 
* Par. pa. 512. t Par. pa. 1018. 


107 

says—When he (Mahdoo Rao Sirkey) went, some said 
“ He is going to Goa on the part of the Maharaj ! I ashed 
Narrain Chittey , and he informed me that the Maharaj 
had directed the Sirkey to go to Goa.” Narrain Chittey, 
the person from whom the preceding witness’s information 
was obtained, and Hurry Bulal Fatuk, differ materially in 
their accounts of this alleged mission—each of them 
asserts* that he was personally directed by the Raja to 
introduce Mahdoo Rao Sirkey to the Viceroy: and while 
Narain Chittey swears that Nago Deorao came back to 
Sattara before the Sirkey, Hurry Balul Fatuk deposes that 
they came together; Raojee Kootness and Balkoba Kelkur 
both state that after his introduction to the Viceroy, the 
Sirkey went to Warree, and Nago returned to Sattara; and 
Raojee Kootness speaks on the authority of Nago only as 
to the alleged interview between the Viceroy and Mahdoo 
Rao Sirkey. 

Balkoba Kelkur states that the Sirkey arrived at Goa 
on the part of the Maharaj, and he is accordingly designa¬ 
ted by Mr. Willoughby as a very important witness; and 
so, if we set aside the infamy of his character, he would 
have been, had he been able to give a sufficient reason for 
his assertion that the Sirkey came on the part of the 
ex-Raj a. Any false witness could state, as he did, the 
simple fact: and his examiner knew better than to inter¬ 
rogate him as to the source of his knowledge. 

Dajee Bulal Waeed’s statement as to the interview 
between the Viceroy and Mahdoo Rao Sirkey, like most 
of his evidence, is founded on Nago’s information. 

It is very possible that Mahdoo Rao Sirkey did go to 
Goa at the time at which he is represented to have done. 
He usually resided in the neighbourhood of Goa, and of 
course, occasionally went to visit his home and his estates; 
but beyond the meagre and unsatisfactory evidence here 
cited by Mr. Willoughby, all of it proceeding from acknow¬ 
ledged accomplices in the intrigue, there is nothing what- 
* Par. pa. 748, 780. 


108 


ever to warrant the inference that his visits to Goa were 
in any way connected with the ex-Raja. Nor should it be 
forgotten that the Sirkey, like many others of the leading 
characters in the alleged intrigue, was dead at the time the 
evidence regarding him was taken, and the witnesses knew 
therefore that they could safely, and without fear of contra¬ 
diction, make what statements they chose as to him. 

The tenth summary,* contains evidence regarding a 
design on the part of the Raja of Sattara, to send an agent 
to Portugal with Don Manoel; the evidence selected 
as proving this fact, being that of Hurry Bulal Fatuk, 
Raojee Kootness, Balkoba Kelkur, Moro Punt Josee, and 
Narain Chittey. 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk states that he was present at an 
interview between the Raja and Nago Deorao, at which the 
sending of such an agent was proposed; and that Nago 
then received the sum of 8000 rupees for that purpose. In 
a subsequent part of his examination, however, he states,f 
that on this occasion 2000 rupees only were given to Nago. 
Nor is this the only discrepancy in his evidence upon this 
point: for in enumerating the parties present at this alleged 
meeting, he states that Narain Chittey was one, whom 
Raojee Kootness, in relating the same circumstance omits 
to mention ; and though he states that a diamond ring was 
on this occasion given to Raojee Kootness, yet on his being 
subsequently asked who was present,J the name of 
Raojee Kootness does not appear in his answer. The 
account also given by him of the conversation which took 
place, differs materially from that of Raojee Kootness. 
His final statement, that 2000 rupees only were given to 
Nago, is contradicted by Balkoba Kelkur and Narain 
Chittey, who both state that the sum was 8000 rupees. 

The evidence of Moro Punt Josee, cited in this summary, 
relates merely to the robbery which is alleged to have 
taken place on Nago^s journey from Sattara to Goa. 

Certain documentary evidence is also included in this 

* Par. pa. 3019. t Par. pa. 749. * Par. pa. 750, para. 9. 


109 


summary, which will be hereafter more particularly 
noticed. 

The eleventh summary* contains evidence showing that 
a correspondence was maintained between the Raja of Sat- 
tara and the Viceroy of Goa. The evidence cited being 
that of Dajee Bulal Waeed, Hybuttee bin Jotiajee, Gopal 
Jayram Kolutkur, Hurry Punt Fatuk, Raojee Kootness, 
Balkoba Kelkur, and Moro Punt Josee. 

The subject of this alleged correspondence will be more 
fully entered into in considering the documentary evidence 
relating to this affair. In the meantime it will be seen that 
the evidence selected by Mr. Willoughby by no , means 
supports the proposition for which he contends. 

Dajee Bulal Waeed states,+ that in January, 1835, Nago 
made him write a letter to Don Manoel, as if from the 
Raja, about Gojra Sahib’s marriage. 

It is difficult enough to believe that the ex-Raja, sus¬ 
picious as he is represented as having been of the fidelity of 
his agents, would have authorized Nago Deorao himself to 
write letters on his behalf: but that this authority should 
have been extended to any other person whom Nago should 
choose to appoint, is absolutely incredible. 

Dajee Bulal Waeed also states,} that, in October or No¬ 
vember, 1835, Nago brought a letter from Don Manoel, 
regarding Mahdoo Rao Sirkey^s visit, which he delivered 
to the ex-Raja in the presence of Rowlojee Naik and Hurry 
Punt Fatuk; this statement is not, however, corroborated 
by Hurry Punt Fatuk; and Dajee Bulal Waeed, though he 
states positively that the letter was delivered, does not ap¬ 
pear to have been present on the occasion. 

The citation made from the evidence of Gopal Jayram 
Kolutkur is rather an unfortunate one. This person swears, § 
that in 1824-25 Nago Deorao came to his house at Pando- 
warree, and left a packet, a span long and six fingers broad, 
with the witnesses father, with instructions to give it to his 
(Nago s) domestic, Hybuttee, when he came for it; and, on 
* Par. pa. 1021. t Par. pa. 723. * Ibid. $ Par. pa. 740. 


no 


being asked with what affair the papers in this packet were 
connected, he says,*— “At the time the Waeed left the 
packet with my father, he said, * This contains papers re¬ 
lating to a treasonable project with Goa; 5 with this intima¬ 
tion of the Waeed my father made me acquainted. 55 

It is not very probable that Nago Deorao would have 
thus unnecessarily published his connection with a 
treasonable conspiracy to a mere stranger : nor is it likely 
that Gopal Jayram, who states, in a subsequent part of his 
deposition, that hostile feelings afterwards arose between 
his family and the Waeed, would have failed to use against 
him the knowledge which he had obtained of his designs. 
But if there were no other reason for disbelieving the evi¬ 
dence of Gopal Jayram, the date which he assigns as that 
at which the packet was deposited by Nago with his father 
would be alone sufficient for that purpose. All the other 
witnesses agree in stating that the intrigue with Goa did 
not commence till the year 1825; and among the papers 
produced by Balkoba Kelkur none has an earlier date 
than 1829; yet Nago is stated to have deposited this 
packet at the house of Gopal Jayram as early as 1824-25. 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk deposes,t that at the meeting between 
the ex-Raj a and Erculan, at which he was present, Erculan 
delivered an introductory letter from Don Manoel: that 
the Raja read it, and that one leaf was in the Portuguese 
language, and one in Hindostanee. Raojee Kootness, in 
the first account which he gives of this interview, J makes 
no mention of any letter at all; and when he is afterwards 
specially asked whether such a letter was or was not de¬ 
livered, he states§ that a letter of the Governor was delivered 
to the Raja: it was in the Portuguese character , and Erculan 
read it. And this statement he afterwards repeats. || 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk also states,If that a letter in a bag 
was delivered in his presence to the Raja by Nago Deorao 
in 1835-36, when he came to Sattara with Raojee Kootness, 

* Par. pa. 740. t Par. pa. 750. t Par. pa. 756. 

§ Par. pa. 761. || Par. pa. 764. f Par. pa. 753. 


ill 


having previously stated, that Raojee Kootness was also 
present upon that occasion. Raojee Kootness, however, 
distinctly contradicts this assertion, for he swears* that 
only one letter was delivered to the Raja in his presence, 
being that already alluded to which was brought by 
Erculan. 

Hurry Bulal Fatuk was also informed by Nag of' that he 
brought a letter to the Raja, when he came to ask how the 
articles of agreement were to be drawn up. 

Raojee Kootness says,J that Nago produced letters on 
different occasions purporting to be from the Raja to Don 
Manoel, but the very passage cited by Mr. Willoughby 
from the evidence of this witness, shows that these letters 
were fabricated by Nago himself. 

Dajee Bulal Waeed says,§ in the passage cited by Mr. 
Willoughby, “ I do not know of any letters from the Ma- 
haraj at Sattara having been sent to Goa and Balkoba 
Kelkur, “ Sometimes when any letter was to be written 
to the Governor, Nago wrote it and attached the seal to 
it. This I heard , but did not see.” 

Moro Bulal Josee deposes,|| to a letter from the Viceroy 
having been delivered to the ex-Raj a in his presence, and 
goes on to relate its contents, which he professes to be 
acquainted with, from having been near his Highness when 
he read it. It is hardly necessary to point out the impro¬ 
bability that such a communication would have been read 
aloud before the messenger who brought it. 

Sir R. Grant, on commenting on this summary, admits^ 
that “ there is not a single instance proved of any letter having 
actually been written at Sattara , with the cognizance of 
the Raja, and that the powers delegated to Nago must be 
left to conjecture: and that, were it not for the abundant 
evidence obtained of the connection which existed between 
the Raja and Nago, and for the fact, clearly proved, that the 
Raja received letters from Don Manoel, alluding to letters 

* Par. pa. 764. f Par. pa. 753. t Par. pa. 1021. § Ibid. 

|| Par. pa. 1022. t Par. pa. 137, para. 138. 


112 


which the latter had received, purporting to proceed from 
the Raja, he should say that the correspondence of the 
ex-Raj a with Don Manoel would he doubtful, and that it 
might be inferred that the letters written in his name 
might not have been authorised on his part.” 

The reader must judge whether the evidence as to the 
Raja’s connection with Nago, abundant as it certainly is, 
is sufficiently conclusive of that fact, and whether the 
reception by his Highness of letters from Don Manoel, is 
so clearly proved, as to rebut the inference which eveij Sir 
R. Grant was constrained to admit, that the letters written 
in the name of the ex-Raj a were unauthorized by him. 

It should be observed here, that though no communica¬ 
tion has ever passed between the Bombay Government or 
the Home Authorities and Don Manoel, or the Government 
of Portugal, on the subject of these alleged intrigues ; an 
application was lately made by Mr. Hume, M.P. to the 
late Viceroy of Goa, requesting information as to the 
genuineness and authenticity of the letters alleged to have 
been written by him to the ex-Raj a, in answer to which, 
the following declaration by Don Manoel, properly signed 
and attested, has been received. 

“ I have received a communication dated the 8th instant, 
from Joseph Hume, Esq. Member of the British Parlia¬ 
ment, relating to a conspiracy which is said to have been 
formed by the Raja of Sattara, (now dethroned) against the 
British power in India, and affirming that I was reported 
to be implicated in the said conspiracy. 

«I consider it necessary for the advancement of justice, 
and for my own honour, to declare that during the whole 
time I governed the Portuguese possessions in India, I 
never had any correspondence on political subjects with the 
said Raja of Sattara , and whatever documents have 
appeared on that subject are false.” 

This solemn statement by a Nobleman of high rank, 
though opposed to nothing but the contradictory and 
hearsay statements of convicted robbers, fraudulent bank- 


113 


rupts, and low intriguers, meets with nothing but contempt 
from Colonel Ovans,* as being the unsupported assertion of 
an accomplice. Unsupported!—of course it is unsupported, 
no evidence having been taken except that required to 
support the case of the ex-Raja^s accusers : that it would 
be unsupported in the event of a fair hearing being granted 
to the ex-Raj a, Colonel Ovans must permit us to doubt. 
Indignant as Colonel Ovans professes to have been at the 
charge of purchasing evidence which has been brought 
against himself, he can hardly expect more credit to be 
given to his own unsupported affidavit than he is willing 
to afford to the declaration of Don Manoel de Portugal. 

With regard to the participation of Don Manoel in this 
alleged intrigue, Sir R. Grant admits that he may have 
been falsely accused. He saysff—“It is possible that the 
name of the Viceroy was abused, and not utterly out of 
possibility that lie was even personated on the occasion;”— 
was it not equally possible that the ex-Raja’s name was 
used without his authority, and that he was falsely repre¬ 
sented by Nago and his party as their employer ? The 
evidence, such as it is, is stronger against the Viceroy, than 
his Highness; and we cannot sufficiently wonder at the 
inconsistency which could admit the probability of the inno¬ 
cence of the one, and yet assume the guilt of the other 
party to be beyond all doubt. 

The twelfth summary^ contains evidence to show that 
the Goa affair was partially communicated to Colonels 
Briggs and Robertson, formerly Residents at Sattara; 
being that of Nillo Abbajee, and Abbajee Narrain Josee, 
which has been already commented on in the remarks 
made on the third summary. The opinions of Colonels 
Briggs and Robertson, as to the conduct and character of 
the ex Raja, have been already cited; and we have seen 
that the alleged Goa intrigue was classed by Colonel 
Robertson among the false accusations against His High- 
ness which he was continually receiving. 

* Par. pa. 1293. t Par. pa. 149. $ Par. pa. 1022. 

I 


114 

We now come to the documentary evidence produced 
against the ex- Raja ; with reference to the alleged intrigue 
with Goa. This consists, as has been already seen, of cer¬ 
tain papers found in the house of Raojee Kootness,when that 
person was seized at Bombay, and of papers sold by Bal- 
koba Kelkur to Colonel Ovans, for the sum. of 400 
rupees, and which he alleged had been delivered to him 
by Nago Deorao, on his death bed at Warree. 

The papers found in the house of Raojee Kootness* are 
five in number; four of them purporting to be letters to 
him from Erculan, who was then at Damaun, and the fifth, 
a letter from the same place, from one Juggonath Sabajee 
Narkurry, to Sabajee Prabhoo Desaee. 

The letters from Erculan, which are represented by the 
Raja’s accusers as referring to the alleged intention of the 
ex-Raj a to send an emissary to Europe with Don Manoel, 
make no mention whatever of such a design. The name 
of the ex-Raja does not appear, nor is he referred to, in 
any one of them ; and these letters, which contain no more 
than requests for an early interview between the writer and 
Raojee Kootness, are, whether genuine or not, perfectly 
immaterial as regards the charge against the ex-Raja. 
The fifth letter is simply an invitation from the writer to 
Sabajee Prabhoo to visit him at Damaun. The first four 
of these letters Raojee Kootness asserts have reference to 
the mission of Erculan to Portugal—an assertion certainly 
not corroborated by the contents of the papers themselves, 
not one of them containing the slightest hint upon the subject. 
The fifth letter, Raojee Kootness states, enclosed a letter 
from Erculan to Narain Chittey, which, however, the 
letter itself says nothing about; and the only inference 
drawn from it by Sir R. Grant is, that an intimacy did, in 
fact, exist between Erculan and Narain Chittey. 

Among the papers produced by Balkoba Kelkur, were 
found nine Portuguese documents,! numbered a to i in¬ 
clusive, of the list e, subjoined to Colonel Ovans’s report of 
♦ Par. pa. 794. + Par - P a - 796 * 


115 


the 11th of November, 1837. Of these papers, a, b, and 
c purport to be letters from Don Manoel to the ex-Raj a; 
d, a petition presented to the Viceroy, which, however, is 
wholly unconnected with the subject of this intrigue; e, a 
paper of stipulations on the part of Don Manoel; f, a 
letter from one Jao Rocha to Nago Deorao; g, a letter 
from Erculan to Raojee Kootness; h, a letter from the 
ex-Raja to Don Manoel; and t, a letter to Nago Deorao, 
from some person whose signature is illegible. 

As to the first three of these documents, it is impossible, 
after reading the solemn declaration made by the late 
Viceroy of Goa, to believe that they really proceeded 
from him, more especially when we remember the custody 
in which they were ultimately found. These letters, if 
genuine, must have been delivered to the ex-Raja; and it 
is absurd to suppose, that without any assignable motive, 
he would have returned papers of such importance to Nago 
Deorao, rather than have retained or destroyed them him¬ 
self. Raojee Kootness deposes that the papers a and b are 
original letters of the Viceroy, and that the signature is in 
his handwriting: and Sir R. Grant, in further proof of the 
genuineness of these documents, produces certain un¬ 
doubted letters from the Viceroy to Sir John Malcolm and 
others ; and from a comparison with them, concludes that 
the letters a and b are really in the handwriting of Don 
Manoel. “ To me/’ he says,* “it appears, that if the 
signatures on a and b are not those of Don Manoel, there 
never was a more inimitable forgery; and I will only ob¬ 
serve further, that as the Raja is of course unacquainted 
with the Portuguese language, the necessity of so elaborate 
a forgery is not apparent.” And again,—Any forgery of 
the autograph of the Governor, however clumsy, would 
have served the purpose as well as the most exact counter¬ 
feit, since there could scarcely be any person at Sattara to 
detect the imposition.” Undoubtedly it would; and it is 
most singular, therefore, that Sir R. Grant, admitting, as 
* Par. pa. 149. 

i 2 


116 


he does in the very next paragraph, that it was possible 
that the name of Don Manoel might have been used with¬ 
out his authority, and therefore that these documents might 
be forgeries, should have been blind to the possibility of 
their having been manufactured by enemies of the ex-Raja, 
in order to ruin him with the British Government, in which 
case a far more careful imitation of the Viceroy’s signature 
would be necessary than such as would have been sufficient 
to deceive His Highness. 

The paper e* contains heads of advice from Don Manoel 
to the ex-Raja, so absurd and extravagant in their nature, 
that Sir R. Grant himself describesf them as “ perfectly 
preposterous,” None of the witnesses profess to have any 
knowledge of this paper, except that Raojee Kootness says,£ 
that 44 it appears to be connected with this affair.” That it 
was a forgery, no one who reads it can doubt; but by 
whom was it forged, and for what purpose ? Its contents 
show that it was written by some one fully acquainted with 
the details of the alleged intrigue ; and the writer could 
have been actuated by no other motive than that of effect¬ 
ing the ruin of the ex-Raja. The paper e is most impor¬ 
tant, as proving that parties hostile to His Highness were 
employed in fabricating a correspondence between him and 
Don Manoel. 

Paper f§ is, as we have seen, a letter from one Jao 
Rocha to Nago Deorao. Raojee Kootness says|| “ he does 
not understand its meaning,” which is not at all surprising. 
Sir R. Grant quotes^! a passage from it without comment, 
and does not attempt, as indeed would be useless, to con¬ 
nect it with the Raja. 

Paper o** purports to be an original letter from Erculan 
to Raojee Kootness; and the following is a translation 
of it: — 

“ Mr. Raojee, Friend and Sir, 

44 His Excellency has not as yet prepared an 

* Par. pa. 70S. t far* pa. 149. t Par. pa. 762. 

$ Par. pa. 799. || Par. pa. 762. f Par. pa. 150. ** Par. pa. 799. 


117 


answer, as he has been three days very busy with the papers 
from Macao. You can send your servant on Friday or 
Saturday, by which time I think it will be ready. If you 
could also come as soon as the Ramnowmee is over, and 
bring also Nana in your company, it would be a good 
thing. For the rest, when we meet, I am always ready 
to show that I am, Yours, &c. 

44 Herculan de Noranno. 

“ Pamjim, 15th April, 1834.” 

The answer alluded to is explained* by Raojee Kootness, 
to mean one which was shortly afterwards written by the 
Viceroy to the ex-Raja and sent through him (Raojee) to 
Nago Deorao; and Sir R. Grant represents! them as suffi¬ 
ciently proving that a correspondence was carried on be¬ 
tween the ex-Raja and Don Manoel. Credulous, indeed, 
must be the mind that could be satisfied with such proof. 
The letter, itself, even if it be genuine, contains no internal 
evidence corroborative of Raojee’s statement; but what 
proof is there that it was really written by Erculan ? no 
more than the assertion of Raojee, an accomplice in the 
intrigue, who well knew that the best means of ensuring a 
pardon for his own participation in the affair, was to multi¬ 
ply as far as he could the proofs of the Raja’s guilt, and who 
being a Goa subject, and understanding Portuguese, could 
without difficulty procure such a paper to be fabricated. 

Paper h.% is a letter in Portuguese, and is described by 
Raojee Kootness § as a translation of one which may have 
gone from the Raja of Sattara to the Viceroy. This paper 
Sir R. Grant admits|| is not authenticated, and it therefore 
deserves no further notice. 

The paper (i) has no reference whatever to the matters 
in question. 

Of the remaining papers bought from Balkoba Kelkur,1f 
thirty-eight in number; 8 purport to be letters and copies 
of letters from Don Manoel to the ex-Raja; 11 from the 

* Par. pa. 762. t Par. pa. 150. J Par. pa. 800. 

$ Par. pa. 762. || Par. pa. 150. If Par. pa. 801, to 819. 


118 


ex-Raja to Don Manoel, and one from the ex-Raj a to Er- 
culan; two from the Senaputtee, an officer of high rank 
under the ex-Raja, to Moogdum, the confidential steward 
of Don Manoel, and one from Moogdum to the Senaputtee; 
the remainder, with the exception of a letter said to have 
been addressed by Nago Deorao to the ex-Raja, and two 
documents purporting to be respectively articles of agree¬ 
ment concluded by the ex-Raja with Don Manoel, and a 
paper of requisitions drawn up by Nago Deorao, are letters 
which passed between Nago and certain of his party. 

For the purpose of authenticating these papers, Mr. Wil¬ 
loughby has prepared four more summaries, the first of 
which # contains the evidence, showing the circumstances 
under which Balkoba Kelkur received charge of Nago 
Deorao’s papers. 

It is stated by Balkoba Kelkur, Dajee Bulal Waeed, and 
Moro Punt Josee, that Nago Deorao on his death-bed, after 
dictating a letter to the ex-Raja, which was written by the 
hand of Moro Punt Josee, delivered the papers and seals 
to Balkoba Kelkur, with a direction to take them to the 
Raja, who would provide for the party. These witnesses, 
however, differ in their account of the persons present on 
this occasion, the last two stating that Balum Bhut Moon- 
ghykur was qne of the party, while Balkoba Kelkur states, 
that he, and Moro Punt Josee, and Dajee Bulal Waeed, 
were alone present. 

With regard to the letter said to have been dictated by 
Nago, it is altogether an assumption that it was addressed 
to the ex-Raja, whose name is not mentioned in it. This 
letter will, however, be further remarked upon hereafter. 

The second of these summaries-]- contains evidence to 
show how these papers came into the possession of Colonel 
Ovans: being selections from the depositions of Ballaram 
Chuprassee and Dajee Bulal Waeed. The circumstances 
of the transaction with Balkoba Kelkur already mentioned, 
which terminated in the purchase of these papers from him 
* Par. pa. 1023. t Par. pa. 1024. 


119 


lor the sum of 400 rupees, and a pledge of protection against 
the consequences of his crimes at Sawunt Warree, are re¬ 
counted by these witnesses. The affair was discreditable to 
Colonel Ovans and the Bombay Government, and the ac¬ 
cusers of the ex-Raja would have acted wisely had they 
passed it over without notice. How Colonel Ovans can 
reconcile the authorized dealings of his agents with Balkoba 
Kelkur, with his solemn declaration, that he had never di¬ 
rectly or indirectly , purchased evidence against the ex-Raja, 
it is difficult to understand. 

The third summary * contains evidence showing how cer¬ 
tain letters, alleged to have been addressed by the Raja to 
Don Manoel, were found among Nago Deorao’s papers. 

The explanation of this most suspicious circumstance, 
rests solely upon the statements of Dajee Bulal Waeed, who 
says merely that he saw Nago go up stairs to the Viceroy, 
and return with a bundle of papers in his hand, and of 
Moro Punt Josee, Wassoodew Shastry, and Balkoba Kel¬ 
kur, who depose that Nago told them that Don Manoel had 
returned the papers. 

It will no doubt strike the reader as a singular circum¬ 
stance, that the ex-Raja should have shown so much anxiety 
that his letters to Don Manoel should be returned to him, 
and yet should have been utterly careless, even after the 
death of Nago, as to what became of the important papers 
in his possession. Detection, as Sir R. Grant admits, was 
to him ruin irremediable ; yet we do not find that any at¬ 
tempt was ever made on the part of his Highness to regain 
possession of these documents, and we are required to be¬ 
lieve that Balkoba Kelkur, into whose possession they had 
come, though so hard pressed for the means of subsistence 
as to have been driven to join a band of robbers, sold them 
to Colonel Ovans for the paltry sum of 400 rupees. The 
inference that these papers were forged is irresistible. Had 
they been genuine, what would have prevented Balkoba 
Kelkur from obtaining from the ex-Raja, who would not 
* Par. pa. 1025. 


120 


have dared to refuse him, any sum that he chose to ask for 
them ? What, at all events, prevented him from presenting 
to the ex-Raja the letter said to have been addressed to 
him by Nago on his death-bed, which, according to his own 
statement, it was Nago’s dying command that he should at 
once deliver, and which contained a recommendation of his 
family and dependents to the liberality and protection of his 
Highness ? It is impossible to believe otherwise than that 
the ex-Raja would have had the refusal of these documents, 
had they really been what they purported to be. 

The fourth # summary contains evidence regarding a Sicca 
and Mortub, (large and small seal), found with Nago 
Deorao’s papers. 

Balkoba Kelkur, Dajee Bulal Waeed, Lukhoba, Sunje- 
wun, Raojee Kootness, and Moro Punt Josee, whose evi¬ 
dence is cited here by Mr. Willoughby, in order to show 
that these seals were prepared by order of the ex-Raja, 
state no more than what they profess to have heard from 
Nago Deorao. Dajee Bulal Waeed is indeed represented 
by Mr. Willoughby, as stating, on his own authority, that 
the Maharaj gave in charge of Nago a Sicca and Mortub, 
with authority to use them on his behalf, but on referring 
to the deposition of this witness, t we find that this asser¬ 
tion, like those of his fellow-conspirators, rests solely on 
information derived from Nago. 

It is admitted by Colonel Ovans J that the seals them¬ 
selves were different from those generally used by the ex- 
Baja, and that there is no direct proof to show how they 
first came into Nago Deorao’s possession ; and he also ad¬ 
mits § that the only facts elicited regarding them are con¬ 
tained in the evidence of Dajee Bulal Waeed, and Balkoba 
Kelkur, who state what they merely profess to have heard 
from Nago, and in the letter alleged to have been dictated 
by Nago on his death-bed; yet both Colonel Ovans and 
Sir R. Grant think the conclusion irresistible that, as these 


* Par. pa. 1026. 
t Par. pa. 405. 


t Par. pa. 725. 
§ Ibid. 


121 


seals were mentioned in Nago’s letter, the ex-Raja must 
have been aware of their existence. To render such a con¬ 
clusion reasonable, however, two assumptions must be made; 
first, that the letter in question was really dictated by Nago, 
a fact which, from the character of the witnesses who depose 
to it, and from the numerous contradictions which occur in 
their other evidence, we are at least entitled to doubt; and 
secondly, that the letter, if genuine, was really addressed to 
the ex-Raja, which, as will be seen hereafter, there are strong 
reasons for believing was not the case. The admitted fact 
that these seals were not those used by the ex-Raja, was 
alone sufficient to throw the strongest suspicion of forgery 
upon the parties using them, but Sir R. Grant draws no 
conclusion in favour of innocence. In every paragraph in¬ 
deed of his lengthy minutes, we meet with fresh instances 
of partiality and injustice against the unfortunate Prince, 
and while we cannot help admiring the talent and ingenuitv 
displayed, in manufacturing anything like a case out of ma¬ 
terials so deplorably weak, it is impossible for any one who 
regards the honour and credit of the British name, to feel 
otherwise than grieved that such powers should have been 
exerted for so unworthy a purpose. 

The following copies of the seals produced by Balkoba 
Kelkur, are taken from the Parliamentary papers.* 



FORGED SEALS. 



True impressions. 
(Signed) 

Colonel Ova ns, 
Acting-Resident. 


Par. pa. 818. 










122 


The inscription on the larger seal is as follows : 

“ Raja Seevajee Chuttraputtee. Adhar-hatti jaiwuntin 
tulwarand has been translated, “ Raja Seevajee, King 
or Emperor, holding in his hand the sword of Victory, or 
his victorious sword/’ 

The inscription on the small seal has been translated,* 
“ Let all be done according to these orders.” 

By the former of these inscriptions it appears that these 
instruments were intended to represent the seals used by the 
great Seevajee Raja, who reigned over the Mahratta empire 
about 170 years ago. The following copies of the seals 
really used by Seevajee Raja have, however, been recently 
forwarded to England, and an inspection of them will show 
that there is not the slightest resemblance between them 
and those produced by Balkoba Kelkur, either in shape, or 
in the inscriptions which they bear. 


Copies of the impressions of the original Seals. 



The Sanscrit inscription on the larger of these seals is as 
follows: 

“ Prutipud chandrareke Wawerdavishnoo Vishwa Vun- 
deta Shasuno Sewarajese rusaumoodra Bhudrayer Rajate,” 
and has been translated, “ Like the increase of the new 
moon from the first day, so all the world obey and worship 
the seal of Seevajee Raja, the son of Shahjee Raja.’* 

Even had the seals produced by Balkoba Kelkur corres¬ 
ponded exactly with those of Seevajee Raja, which they 
were intended to represent, the use of instruments in the 
Goa intrigue, different from those usually affixed by the ex- 
Raja to state papers, would have been inexplicable. Don 
Manoel, who is represented to have been so suspicious of 
Nago’s alleged authority, as to have sent an agent to Sat- 














123 


tara to ascertain the fact, would hardly have sustained a 
correspondence, and executed agreements with the ex-Raja, 
while the letters purporting to come from that Prince not 
only were not authenticated by his seal, but bore the stamp 
of one never used by him ; and the ex-Raja himself would 
scarcely have expected any credence to be given to his com¬ 
munications under such circumstances; but passing over 
this difficulty, and assuming that his Highness had for some 
reason or other, resolved to use the seals of his ancestor in¬ 
stead of his own, would he not, if Nago Deorao’s seals were 
really fabricated by his orders and according to his direc¬ 
tions, have taken care that they were correctly executed ? 
It is impossible to believe otherwise than that the ex-Raja 
had nothing whatever to do with the manufacture of these 
instruments; and it is almost equally difficult to conceive 
that so clumsy a forgery should have been imperceptible to 
the Bombay authorities. 

The witnesses examined as to the purport and hand¬ 
writing of these papers, were Dajee Bulal Waeed, Moro 
Punt Josee, Hurry Bulal Fatuk, Narain Chittey, and 
Raojee Kootness. 

Of these 38 documents, No. 1* is stated by Raojee 
Kootness, Dajee Bulal Waeed and Moro Punt Josee, to 
be a Mahratta translation of the paper a f already alluded 
to, in the handwriting of Sukharam Kamut, Doobhasee, 
or interpreter of the Portuguese Government. The 
paper a, as we have seen, is represented to be a letter 
from Don Manoel to the ex-Raja; yet this letter, as well 
as those numbered b, c, 26 and 32, are addressed, not 
to His Highness Pertaub Sing , but to Seevajee Raja , a 
man who had been dead upwards of 170 years This 
paper, if genuine, and really intended for the ex-Raja, 
would of course have been delivered to His Highness, and 
the circumstance of its having been found in Nago’s posses¬ 
sion, as well as the Portuguese version, which would natu¬ 
rally have been retained by Don Manoel, is quite unaecount- 
* Par. pa. 801. t Par. pa. 796. 


124 


able. It is far more probable that this paper was the Mah- 
ratta draft framed by Nago, for the purpose of fabricating 
the paper a. 

No. 2 is merely a copy of No. 1, stated by Moro Punt 
Josee, and Hurry Bulal Fatuk, to be in the handwriting of 
the former. Dajee Bulal Waeed, # Narain Chittey,f and 
Raojee Kootness,^ who all profess to be well acquainted 
with the handwriting of Moro Punt Josee, are unable to 
authenticate this paper. 

Nos. 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 9, 12, and 13, purport to be letters 
from the ex-Raja to Don Manoel, and No. 8, articles con¬ 
cluded by His Highness with Don Manoel in December, 
1829. All these are stated by Raojee Kootness§ to be 
original documents written by the ex-Raja ; yet, Nos. 3, 4, 
6, 7, 8, 12, and 13, are stated by Hurry Bulal Fatuk|| and 
Narain Chittey,1[ to be in the handwriting of Nana Fatuk; 
No. 5 is declared by Moro Punt Josee ## to be written by 
himself, in which he is supported by Hurry Bulal Fatukff 
and Narain Chittey ; %% and No. 9 is stated by Dajee Bulal 
Waeed§§ and Moro Punt Josee, to be in the handwriting of 
the former. Moro Punt Josee, though he is ignorant of 
the writer of the papers 3, 4, 6, 7, and 8, professes to re¬ 
cognise the handwriting of Nana Fatuk in Nos. 12 and 13, 
and Dajee Bulal Waeed, though he afterwards professes to 
identify numerous papers as having been written by Moro 
Punt Josee, cannot name the author of No. 5. All these 
papers bear the impressions of the seals produced by Bal- 
koba Kelkur, which, as we have seen, all parties admit were 
not those used by the ex-Raja. 

The contents of No. 8|||| are beyond measure absurd and 
extravagant, and are alone at least sufficient to create a 
strong suspicion that this document did not emanate from 
the ex-Raja ; and in addition to its intrinsic absurdity, we 
are required to believe, that though Don Manoel without 

* Par. pa. 767. t Par. pa. 781. * Par. pa. 762. § Ibid. 

H Par. pa. 752. f Par. pa. 781. ** Par. pa. 777. tt Par. pa. 752. 

R Par. pa. 781. §§ Par. pa. 767. |j|| Par. pa. 804. 


125 


hesitation executed this agreement with Nago Deorao, as 
the agent of the ex-Raja in 3 829, he yet sent Herculan, 
in 1831, to ascertain whether he really was or not such 
agent. 


No. 9*, which, as we have seen, was written by Dajee 
Bulal Waeed, contains a request from the ex-Raj a to the 
Viceroy, to deliver to Nago Deorao and Raojee Kootness 
all the papers relating to the alleged intrigue. It is not 
however, pretended that the ex-Raja himself manifested 
any anxiety about his reputed letters, for Dajee Bulal Waeed 
statesf that this letter was written by the direction of Nago, 
under the general power which, as he asserts, His High¬ 
ness had delegated to him, of writing and giving papers. 
It will not fail to strike the reader, that supposing these 
documents to be forged, some such letter as No. 9 was 
necessary to account for their being found in Nago Deo- 
rao’s possession. 

It is observable that Dajee Bulal Waeed states]: as to 
this paper,— 44 Nago Deorao and Eshwunt Raojee (Raojee 
Kootness) having drawn out a rough copy at Rybunder, 
gave it tome, according to which I wrote it;”—yet Raojee 
Kootness swears§ that No. 9 is an original letter of the ex- 
Raja. 

Yet with all this contradictory evidence as to the author¬ 
ship of these documents, the balance of proof, however, 
showing that they were fabricated by the parties who pro¬ 
duced them, without seeking for an explanation from the 
accused party, or giving him an opportunity of rebutting 
the case, such as it was, preferred against him, Sir R. Grant at 
once admits|| these papers as the genuine letters of the ex- 
Raja. With every inclination to respect the memory of 
the virtuous dead, as Mr. Willoughby, more on account of 
his own connection with these affairs than from respect to 
his deceased superior, denominates Sir R. Grant, it is im¬ 
possible to disguise the fact, that in his mind the credit of 


* Par. pa. 805. 

$ Par. pa. 763. 


t Par. pa. 767. 
|| Par. pa. 152. 


t Par. pa. 767. 


1*26 


the Bombay Government far outweighed all consideration 
of justice in pronouncing on the innocence or guilt of the 
accused Prince. Sir R. Grant, though he did not openly 
profess it, was to the full as great an admirer of the prin¬ 
ciples of political expediency, as his subordinate Colonel 
Ovans. 

Nos. 10 and 11 # purport to be letters from Nago Deorao 
himself, in the hand writing of Moro Punt Josee, the one 
without address, but which is represented by the witnesses 
as intended for the ex-Raja, and the other addressed jointly 
to Hurry Bulal Fatuk, Raojee Kootness and Narain 
Chittey. 

Much stress has been laid on these letters both by Colo¬ 
nel Ovans and Sir R. Grant, as proving that Nago Deorao, 
was the agent of the ex-Raja in this intrigue—that they 
were, however, forgeries, or if genuine, that the inference 
drawn from them is altogether unfounded, a brief consi¬ 
deration of the circumstances under which they were pro¬ 
duced, and of their contents, will be amply sufficient to 
show. 

No. 10, which is without address, after representing the 
state of the writer’s health, contains a supplication that his 
offerings and lamp at Deo (the temple) at Shree Ravensidh 
may be continued, that his debts may be discharged, and 
that his family and dependents may be protected and pro¬ 
vided for. It was entrusted to Balkoba Kelkur, with the 
dying entreaty of the writer that it should be immediately 
delivered, as the witnesses present say, to the ex-Raja. Yet 
Balkoba Kelkur, though himself in distressed circumstances, 
and seeing the family and friends of Nago in similar want, 
retains this letter, the delivery of which could not fail to 
relieve him and them from their necessities, for the space 
of fifteen months, and ultimately sells it with the other 
papers connected with the intrigue, for the paltry sum of 
£40. The letter itself contains nothing which proves that 
it was intended for the ex-Raja, and the following argu- 
* Par. pa. 805, 800. 


127 


ments, which are borrowed from a speech delivered by Ma¬ 
jor General Robertson at the East India house, on the 16th 
of June, 1841, afford strong ground for believing that the 
person addressed was the Swamee of Sunkeshwur. 

In the letter alleged to have been addressed to the ex- 
Raja, Nago, after other matters, states that his death was 
approaching, that he never would see the feet again, and 
then submits the five following requests: 

1st. That the offerings and perpetual lamp at the Deo at 
Shree Ravensidh may constantly continue. 

2nd. That a debt due from him to the Shop at Ravensidh 
may be paid. 

3rd. That his children, who are young and ignorant, may 
be provided for and protected. 

4th. That a pledge to liquidate a debt due by the late 
Chintaram may be fulfilled. 

5th. That a provision may be made for Dajeeba Waeed. 

Having made the above requests, he concludes thus: 
“ the master has hitherto provided for me in every way, 
and will do so hereafter: therefore, taking the supplication 
into consideration, the master is powerful to make a provi¬ 
sion. The paper and stamps have been delivered into the 
charge of Balcrishna Ragoonath. By the virtuous actions 
of the master the affair will be accomplished; but myself, 
being unfortunate, I am bereft of the feet. Never mind, 
Shree Sedraj will bless the master with constant pros¬ 
perity.” 

In his letter to his three coadjutors, Nago informs them, 
that since their departure, his distemper daily increasing 
and his constitution getting very weak, being overcome 
with disease and despairing of recovery, he had written a 
humble supplication, which they were to present and get 
the whole of the arrangements made. He then observes, 
“ He will comply, of which I am assured, Balumbhutjee, 
Balkoba Tatia, Dajeeba Waeed, and Moro Punt Josee will 
communicate all the matter. In short, remembering how 
you and myself have hitherto behaved, take care of all the 


128 

Mundullee (gang), and see them all conduct themselves 
with one unanimous concern ; and the affair, through the 
grace of Shree Sidh, should be accomplished by the exer¬ 
tions of all. The Deo being favourable, will crown it with 
success : to accomplish his own affair , it depends on Shree 
Deo (GodJ. My desire is, that the affair might succeed, 
and all, with pleasing consideration, might be ready in the 
service of the Deo. Persevering in it, you should, by the 
command of the Shree, accomplish it: he will have favour. 
Do not desert Dajeeba Waeed; and it rests with you all to 
fulfill the pledge given by me to marry Babjee Wittul. 
Let your kind regard remain.’’ 

In the letter said to be intended for the ex-Raja, there is 
nothing that indicates it to be such as Nago would have 
addressed to his Highness at the close of his earthly, as 
well as Goa, mission. In that to his three coadjutors, it is 
evident that he is all along alluding to some religious 
object ; “ to accomplish his own affair, it depends on 
Shree Deo (God.”) They are all ‘ 4 with pleasing consi¬ 
deration, to be ready in the service of the Deo” That the 
Deo’s affair was one that related to the Brahmins, the 
peculiar object of the Deo’s regard in this world, there can 
be no doubt. Now what object had the Brahmins most at 
heart ? Victory in their dispute with the Prubhoos, who, 
they considered, were favoured by the ex-Raja; in conse¬ 
quence of which his Highness had long been the object of 
their peculiar hatred and aversion. There can be little 
doubt, indeed, that Untajee, the Brahmin agent in the 
charge against his Highness, of attempting to seduce the 
Sepoys, was the tool of some more important personages of 
his caste; and should that charje be ever fairly investigated, 
it can hardly fail to be proved that such was the case. It 
was expected that that charge would have effected the 
Raja’s ruin: but that failing, there was this of the Goa 
plot, the materials of which had been long preparing under 
the Swamee and the other great Brahmin directors. <fi The 
affair of the Deo,” therefore, was the ruin of the Rajcv> 


129 


when opportunity might offer, by this plot. Nago counsels 
his people to be unanimous, and surely in the mode in which 
they have conducted this conspiracy they have proved so. 

Even Sir R. Grant* cannot conceal from himself that 
this is a religious affair; but his mind being so possessed of 
the persuasion of the ex-Raj a’s guilt, he considers that 
“ the Deo’s own affair,” which he will accomplish, is the 
invasion of India by 30,000 Portuguese troops. He admits 
that the undertaking originated with the Swamee, a person 
deeply interested in the support of the Hindoo religion ; 
and yet he thinks the Swamee looked to 30,000 Portuguese 
to promote that religion ! The Portuguese ! who, when¬ 
ever they have been able to do so, have, from a spirit of 
proselytism, persecuted the Hindoo faith, as the Swamee 
well knew: whereas the English, whom they were to expel, 
and whose place they were to occupy, have never done so. 

Nos. 12 and 13f have already been commented upon. 

No. 14| is a paper without date, purporting to contain 
requisitions from the Governor of Goa to the Raja of Sat- 
tara. It is stated by Hurry Bulal Fatuk and Narain 
Chittey, to be in the handwriting of Nana Fatuk; yet 
Moro Punt Josee, who recognises Nana Fatuk’s writing in 
Nos. 12 and 13, cannot name the author of this paper. 
We can hardly believe Sir R. Grant was not alive to the 
absurdity of the assertion, that papers on the part of Don 
Manoel should have been prepared by the agents of the 
ex-Raja ; yet this circumstance, affording as it does a far 
stronger argument that these documents were forged, than 
any that Sir R. Grant, with all his ingenuity, could adduce in 
favour of their authenticity, he passes over without comment. 

The terms of this paper are sufficiently extravagant in 
themselves to justify the strongest suspicions of its genuine¬ 
ness. It contains, among other things, an inquiry about 
certain letters supposed to have been received by the ex- 
Raja from France, and his replies to them; and in the 
agreement between his Highness and Don Manoel, which 

* Par.”pa. 155, par. 245. t Par. pa. 806. t Par. pa. 807. 

K 


130 


it will be remembered, Wassoodew Shastri states that he 
copied for the Swamee, one of the stipulations was, that 
15 French pultans (battalions) should be supplied by the 
Governor of Goa. Now the ex-Raja, as his friends assert, 
was not even aware of the existence of the French nation, 
the English and Portuguese being the only Europeans with 
whom he was acquainted ; and that his Highness, there¬ 
fore, should have had any correspondence with France, is 
as incredible as that Don Manoel should have believed 
that he had. Again, in the agreement, it is stipulated that 
Don Manoel should supply the French troops, and receive 
the reward for so doing : whereas the inquiry in the paper 
now under consideration, infers that the ex-Raja was treat¬ 
ing directly with France for that purpose. 

No. 15,* which Sir R. Grantf calls a “ remarkable do¬ 
cument,” fully deserves that description. <c It purports to 
be a paper of instructions from Don Manoel to the Raja, 
of a nature so excessively absurd, that no one who reads it 
can for a moment seriously believe that it proceeded from 
a European nobleman. 

What will the reader think, for instance, of a recommen¬ 
dation to the ex-Raja to study the histories of Bonaparte, 
described by Don Manoel as Ms countryman , and those of 
other Portuguese heroes, “ from which,” continues the 
paper, “ all the projects of our people will be known ?” 

Dajee Bulal Waeed saysj that he wrote this paper, at the 
dictation of Nago Deorao and Raojee Kootness. Raojee 
Kootness, however, first swears, § that Nago himself first wrote 
it in his presence, and afterwards,|| on its being suggested to 
him that Nago had caused this and the following paper to be 
written by another party, he says, that he was not present at 
the conversation with the,Viceroy, the substance of which the 
paper, No. 15, purports to contain, and that Nago informed 
him that it was written by Dajee Bulal Waeed. 

No. 16 ,% which is headed “ substance of the Instruc- 

* Par. pa. 808. t Par. pa. 155. t Par. pa. 767. 

§ Par. pa. 763. || Par. p. 764, par. 24. % Par. pa. 809. 


131 


tions received from the head station” (Portugal), and said 
to be the substance of a verbal communication from the 
Governor of Goa to the Raja of Sattara, is to the full as 
ridiculous in its nature as the preceding paper—and the 
evidence as to its author is the same. 

Nos. 17, 18, 19,20, 21, 22, 23 and 24, are letters ad¬ 
dressed to Nago Deorao, by some of his fellow conspira¬ 
tors—three of them, Nos. 17, 20 and 21, # were addressed to 
him by Hurry Bulal Fatuk, the latter two in his own hand¬ 
writing, and the first in that of one Bickajee Punt Bam, 
who, however, is not called to identify it. It should be 
observed, that No. 17 was not authorised to be written by 
Hurry Bulal Fatuk himself, but was written in his name by 
the direction of Narain Chittey. 

Nos. 18, 19 and 22,f are from Narain Chittey to Nago 
Deorao: the first two in the handwriting of Bickajee Punt 
Bam, according to the evidence of Hurry Bulal Fatuk and 
Narain Chittey, though Raojee Kootness states,.]: that No. 
19 was written by Narain Chittey ; and the third, as stated 
by Dajee Bulal Waeed, Hurry Bulal Fatuk, and Narain 
Chittey, in that of Narrain Chittey himself; though Moro 
Punt Josee states it to be the joint production of Narain 
Chittey and Tejeeram; and Raojee Kootness, who swears 
to the handwriting of Narain Chittey in No. 35, is un¬ 
acquainted with that of the present paper. 

Nos. 23 and 24,§ are letters from the banker, or rather 
bankrupt Tejeeram to Nago Deorao. 

These letters are altogether inadmissible as evidence 
against the ex-Raja; but even if they could be received, 
they prove nothing whatever, as the Raja’s name is not 
mentioned, nor his alleged connection with the party even 
hinted at in any one of them. There is a passage, how¬ 
ever, in No. 19, which proves beyond all doubt that his 
Highness had nothing to do with the funds supplied 
through Tejeeram. Narain Chittey writes||—By means of 

* Par. pa. 810-12. f Par. pa. 810-13. t Par. pa. 763. 

§ Par. pa. 813. || Par. pa. 811. 

K 2 


132 


this very letter, Teykurn Jowherdass (Tejeeram) makes his 
solicitations, and respectfully represents, “ the letter sent 
by you has been received. The matter here the Chittey 
has already written. The balance of the shop against you 
is 2,500, and against the Fatuk and Chittey 3000 : in 
all 5,500: and the building of the house has cost me 
about 3000. I am in such difficulty. To relieve me from 
this depends on you. I have no other support; all this you 
are sensible of.” This is rather inconsistent with the state¬ 
ment, that the money advanced to these parties was fur¬ 
nished to Tejeeram by Rowlojee Naik, on account of the 
ex-Raja. Had Tejeeram really been as he professed, 
cognizant of the co-operation of his Highness with the Goa 
intrigue, we should hardly find him asserting that he had 
no other support than Nago. 

No. 25 is a copy of No. 4, and is stated by Hurry 
Bulal Fatuk and Narain Chittey to be in the handwriting 
of Nana Fatuk; Moro Punt Josee, however, who as we have 
seen, swears that Nos. 12 and 13 were written by Nana 
Fatuk, does not know the writer of this paper. 

Some stress is laid by Sir R. Grant upon this paper, and 
the others which are alleged to be in the handwriting of 
Nana Fatuk, who died in 1832, as proving that they were 
written before that time, and could not have been recently 
fabricated for the purpose of injuring the Raja. It must 
be remembered, however, that we have only the assertions 
of the parties themselves implicated, and in which they do 
not always agree, to prove the authorship of these papers ; 
and even admitting them to be genuine, there is nothing 
very incredible in the supposition, that under the baleful 
influence of Ballajee Punt Nattoo, the plan for the ex- 
Raja’s ruin had been long contemplated. 

Nos. 2b and 33* are copies of translations of letters from 
Bon Manoel to the ex-Raja, in the writing of Moro Punt 
Josee. Dajee Bulal Waeed, however, who swears that 
these papers are written by Moro Punt Josee, is ignorant, 
* Par. pa. 813, 816. 


133 


as has been already seen, of the writer of Nos. 2 arid 5, 
which Moro Punt Josee admits that he wrote. 

It is hardly necessary to observe that copies of letters are 
never received in this country by Courts of Justice, against 
the writer of the originals, unless the absence of those ori¬ 
ginals is well and sufficiently accounted for. Even original 
papers are looked upon with the greatest jealousy, and the 
most complete proof of genuineness is required before ad¬ 
mitting them as evidence; were it otherwise, a wide door 
would be opened to forgery, and no man’s property, or even 
life, would be secure. Sir R. Grant, in dignifying these 
and similar documents with the name of evidence, displays 
a lamentable ignorance of the real meaning of the word. 

No. 27* is also a copy of a letter from the Viceroy’s 
steward, to the Senaputtee, and is stated by Dajee Bulal 
Waeed and Moro Punt Josee, to be in the handwriting of 
Ram Bhoo Waeed, the brother of Nago Deorao. This 
person however, though still living, has not been examined. 

No. 28 is a copy of No. 5, in the handwriting of Moro 
Punt Josee. 

No. 29f is a copy of a letter purporting to be from the 
ex-Raja to Erculan, also in the handwriting of Moro Punt 
Josee. It refers to the alleged mission of Erculan to Sat- 
tara, and mentions that Nago Deorao and Raojee Kootness 
had left that place for Goa. 

No. 30 is a copy of a letter in the name of Moogdum, 
the Viceroy’s steward, to the Seenaputtee, in the writing of 
Ram Bhoo Waeed. 

No. 31 is the rough draft of a letter in the name of the 
ex-Raja to the Viceroy, and is also in the handwriting of 
Moro Punt Josee. 

No. 32% is a copy of a letter in the name of the Viceroy 
to the ex-Raja, and, as stated by Dajee Bulal Waeed and 
Moro Punt Josee, is in the handwriting of the former. 
Yet Moro Punt Josee cannot name the writer of Nos. 15, 
and 16, which Dajee Bulal Waeed admits that he wrote. 

* Par. pa. 814. \ Par. pa. 815. \ Par. pa. 815. 


134 


No. 34* purports to be a rough draft of a letter from the 
ex-Raj a to the Viceroy, in the writing of Moro Punt Josee. 

No. 35f is stated to be an original letter from Narain 
Chittey to Balkoba Kelkur. The name of the ex-Raja is 
not mentioned in it, and if it were, it would of course be 
of no more weight than the evidence of Narain Chittey 
himself. 

No. 36J is a rough draft of a letter from the Senaputtee 
to the Viceroy’s steward, in the handwriting of Moro Punt 
Josee, as stated by that person, Hurry Bulal Fatuk, Dajee 
Bulal Waeed, and Narain Chittey. Raojee Kootness, how¬ 
ever, states that he wrote part of it. So that if this paper 
be genuine, Nago Deorao and his subordinates had autho¬ 
rity to write letters in the names of the officers of the 
Raja’s Court, as well as in that of his Highness. 

No. 37 § is a rough draft of a letter, in the name of the 
ex-Raja to the Viceroy, and is also in the handwriting of 
Moro Punt Josee, if the assertions of that person, and of 
Dajee Bulal Waeed, Hurry Bulal Fatuk, and Narain Chit¬ 
tey, are to be believed. Raojee Kootness, however, states 
that he had a share in the composition of this paper also. 

No. 381| is merely a memorandum of notes relating to 
the intrigue, said to be in the handwriting of Nago Deorao. 

Such are the papers which Colonel Ovans calls “ extra¬ 
ordinary documentsand upon the faith of which, in 
addition to the oral evidence of accomplices, Sir R. Grant 
expresses^ his firm conviction of the ex-Raja’s guilt. Yet 
not one of these papers is even alleged to have been written 
by the ex-Raja—not one of them bears his seal: there is 
no proof whatever that Nago was ever endowed by His 
Highness with the extraordinary and incredible powers 
attributed to him ; and it is admitted, on all sides, that there 
is no evidence of any letter having ever been sent from Sattara 
by the ex-Raja. Sir R. Grant’s conviction of His Highness’s 
guilt rests on papers, not evidence even if genuine, but bear- 

* Par. pa. 816. + Par. pa. 816. ^ Par. pa. 817. 

§ Par. pa. 817. || Par. pa. 818. f Par. pa. 161. 


135 


ing upon the face of them every mark of forgery ; and upon 
the exparte assertions of witnesses of notoriously infamous 
character. Blinded by prejudice, and vain of his own inge¬ 
nuity and argumentative powers, he seems, from the first, 
to have been convinced of the guilt of the accused Prince, 
and to have laboured for no other end than to prove his 
own infallibility. Throughout the whole of his elaborate 
minutes—the productions rather of a determined and 
merciless accuser, than of an upright and impartial judge— 
we look in vain for inferences in favour of the ex-Raja, or 
doubts of the truth of the witnesses against him. Cha¬ 
racter goes for nothing; the most improbable assertions 
meet with ready credence ; and the witness whose testimony 
tends to prove the charge to be false, and Sir R. Grant in 
the wrong, is at once disbelieved. Surrounded, as he was, 
by enemies ever ready to come forward with false evidence, 
which Colonel Ovans was only too willing to receive, with 
no more hope of justice than what was to be obtained from 
Sir R. Grant, the ruin of the ex-Raja was inevitable. 

Besides the evidence thus obtained by Colonel Ovans, 
other information upon the subject of this intrigue, which 
Sir R. Grant calls corroborative evidence, was received by 
Mr. Dunlop, at Dharwar, and Mr. Spooner, at Rutna- 
gherry. Colonel Ovans, in a letter to the Bombay 
Government, dated the 27th of July, 1837,* re¬ 
ported that he had been informed, 66 that a Kolapoor 
Akbarnavees, by name Ramapa, now at Dharwar, was 
some years ago sent to Goa, by Mr. Nisbet, to inquire into 
certain intrigues then carrying on between that place and 
Sattara, and that it was supposed he had succeeded in ob¬ 
taining the information required;” and also stated that he 
had been given to understand that some papers regarding 
the Goa intrigue had fallen into the possession of Chinta- 
mon Rao Sangleekur, and that these might be obtained on 
application to Annapa Shapoorkur, the Carbarry of Chin- 
tamon Rao. The papers were said to have been obtained 
by the late Swamee of Sunkeshwur from Nago Deorao, and 
* Par. pa. 382. 


136 


to have been given by the Swamee to Chintamon Rao. 
In consequence of this report, Mr. Dunlop, the Political 
Agent at Dharwar, was directed* to put himself in secret 
communication with the Carbarry of Chintamon Rao, and 
endeavour to obtain possession of the documents in ques¬ 
tion; and on the 29th of November, 1837, Mr. Dunlop 
reportedf that he had obtained from the present Swamee 
of Sunkeshwur, through the Dewan of Chintamon Rao, 
some of the papers alluded to, which he at the same time 
forwarded to Bombay. With regard to Chintamon Rao, 
Mr. Dunlop stated, that he had informed him (Mr. Dun¬ 
lop), through his Minister, that he obtained intelligence of 
something being in agitation at Sunkeshwur, though not 
in a sufficiently authentic shape to enable him to commu¬ 
nicate it to Government, without the risk of being unable 
to substantiate it, if called on; and he therefore contented 
himself with writing to caution the Swamee to abstain from 
all concern in such transactions, but he denied having ever 
possessed any original papers, though he made use of the in¬ 
telligence he had obtained to endeavour to frighten the Raja 
into his views respecting the quarrel between the Brahmins 
and Prubhoos , by pretending to know much more than he 
really did, and which he supposed may have led to the 
opinion of his having original papers in his possession. 

This explanation, Sir R. Grant says,£ does not strike him 
as very satisfactory; and indeed it would be strange if it 
had, for it certainly goes a great way towards proving that 
the Goa charge was the production of a Brahmin plot, and 
the various papers manufactured for the purpose of work¬ 
ing upon the Raja’s fears. 

Mr. Dunlop’s letter was accompanied by four papers, 
the first of which§ is a letter from Nago Deorao to the late 
Swamee, stated by Hurry Bulal Fatuk, and Balkoba Kel- 
kur, to be original, and in the handwriting of Nana Fatuk. 
It has, however, no reference whatever to the subject of the 
present charge against the ex-Raja. 

* Par. pa. 87. f Par. pa. 824, t Par. pa. 165. $ Par. pa. 825. 


137 

No. 2* is supposed by Mr. Dunlop to be a copy of a 
paper containing the heads of the propositions which Nago 
Deorao was authorized to make to the Portuguese Govern¬ 
ment. “ It is only a copy,” says Mr. Dunlop, however, 
“ an d cannot, therefore, be looked upon as of any force as 
proof. W hat, it may be asked, would be the weight of 
Balkoba s papers if this principle were applied to them ? 
This paper Sir R. Grant representsT as confirming, in a 
remarkable manner, the evidence of Wassoodew Shastry, 
who, as has been already stated, asserts that he copied for 
the Swamee a yad or agreement drawn up on the part of 
the ex-Raja, between his Highness and Don Manoel. Yet 
Wassoodew Shastry saysf that this paper is not in his hand¬ 
writing, and that he does not know who wrote it; and though 
he states that, with the exception of one additional article, 
the contents of this paper are exactly similar with that which 
he copied for the Swamee, it will be seen, on referring to 
his deposition,§ that there are hardly two words alike in the 
two papers. 

No. 3. || is stated by Raojee Kootness to be an original 
letter from himself to the late Swamee, and is explained 
by Raojee to have reference to treasonable communications 
between the ex-Raja of Sattara and Goa. Without this ex¬ 
planation, the letter contains nothing which can affect his 
Highness; and it may be observed, that the contents of 
this document are strongly confirmatory of the supposition 
of Major General Robertson, that the affair in which Nago 
was concerned, was altogether a religious one. 

No. 4. which purports to be a letter from Erculan to the 
late Swamee, is like the preceding papers, utterly worthless, 
without the explanation given to it by Raojee Kootness! 
Neither in it, nor in No. 3, is the slightest mention made of 
the ex-Raja. 

On the 6th of January, 1838, Mr. Dunlop reported^! to 
the Government of Bombay that he had just obtained some 
papers, through the agency of Ram Rao Akburnivees, con- 

* Par. pa. 823. t Par. pa. 164. { Par. pa. 828. 

§ Par. pa. 720. || Par. pa. 825. f p ar . pa . 820. 


138 


neeted with the Goa intrigues, from the dependents of the 
late Swamee; and that he had taken the deposition of 
Narain Bhut Sidhe, detailing the mission in which he had 
been employed; and that one of the facts stated by this 
witness (that he had seen the Peishwa or Prime Minister’s 
seals in the Swamee’s possession) was corroborated by those 
instruments having been brought to him without the know¬ 
ledge of the witness, by the Carbarrys of the Swamee, from 
his treasury. Narain Bhut Sidhe, however, never stated, 
as he is represented to have done, that he had seen these 
seals in the late Swamee’s possession. The following* is his 
statement regarding them :—“ A roomal containing the 
above-mentioned papers, and the Sicca and Mortub, were 
placed by the Swamee apart in the Jamdarkhana whilst the 
Swamee was ill, and when he died the money and jewels, $fc. 
in the Jamdarkhana were secretly taken away: this I saw 
myself. Babajee Hummunt Row, Ramappa and Bappoo Pot- 
dar, were the three principal persons concerned in abstract¬ 
ing the money, &c. from the Jamdarkhana.” We cannot 
think very highly of the evidence of this witness, when we 
find him thus admitting that he was an abettor, if not a 
party concerned in a robbery committed upon his dying 
master.—Mr. Dunlop also enclosed impressions of these seals 
of which the following, taken from the parliamentary 
papers,f are copies :— 

Forged Seals. 


* ’ft" 


a 




Par. pa. 831. 




S' 




t Par. pa. 829. 








139 

Forged Seals. 



The inscription on the large seal, Mr. Dunlop says, is 
in the name of the ex-Raja, as follows : <c Shahoo JNur- 
puttee.” “ Hursh Nidan Sudasew Bajee Row.” “ Bajee 
Row Mookb Prudhanthe latter name being that of a 
youth adopted by Bajee Row, which marked the feelings 
and intentions of the party. The small seal has merely 
the words “ Sekhuti Seema,” “ The End.” 

This inscription has been translated in London, and the 
following is its meaning, “ Raja Shahoo, King of Men 
“ The powerful Sudasew Bajee Row, the Chief or Prime 
Minister.” This proves, beyond all doubt, that the seal was 
a forged one ; for the first Raja Shahoo reigned upwards of 
a century ago, and the second monarch of that name, the 
father of the ex-Raja, died in the year 1808, and during 
his life no adoption of Bajee Row took place. Bajee Row 
was dismissed from his office of Peishwa by proclamation 
of the ex-Raja in the year 1819, as appears by Capt. Grant’s 
letter of that date;* and the state seals of his Highness* 
he having, up to that time, employed those of his fathei* 
were changed-^ in the same year. The following are copies 
of impressions of the seals used by his Highness subse- 
sequently to the year 1819:— 


Original Seals. 







(Signed) 


lijs 

Rungo Bapojee, 
Vakeel. 


* Par. pa. 503. 


t Par. pa. 502. 
















140 


The inscription on the large seal, is as follows 
“ Gowrie Nath Wurprapta Shahoo Raja Otma Junmunha, 
Moodra, Pretaper Singwursher, Bhudra Surwurtra Rajitee,” 
and has been translated, u By the favour ol Gowrie and 
Ishwur, the seal of Pretap Sing Raja, the son of Shahoo 
Raja, obeyed by all, or commanding allthat on the small 
seal is 44 Muryadi yem ve Rajiti,” and means, “ Let all be 
done according to these orders.” * 

According to the inscription on the large seal, of which 
an impression was sent by Mr. Dunlop to Bombay, that 
seal purported to have belonged to one of the Peishwas, 
and if further proof of its spurious character were neces¬ 
sary, the fact that no such person as Sudasew Bajee Row 
ever filled the office of Peishwa is sufficient to afford it. 
The following is an extract from a letter dated the 27th of 
March, 1844, from Khunday Rao Bulwunt Chitness Pundit 
Sumunt to Rungo Bapojee, Yakeel of the ex-Raja. 

44 In your letter to me from London, dated 5th of 
February, you ask me to inform you when Sudasew Bajee 
Row obtained from his Highness the Maharaj Chuttraputtee 
the Khelat of his appointment to the office of Peishwa. In 
reply to this, I have to observe that such a person as Sudasew 
Bajee Row is quite unknown to us here—the first to whom 
this dignity was granted was Balaji Vishwanath, who had two 
sons, the elder of whom was called Bajee Rao Bullal, who 
succeeded his father as Peishwa. I enclose you a list of all 
the public officers of the Sattara State who have held this 
high office. The second son was called Chimnajee Bullal, 
whose only son was Sudasew Chimnajee, otherwise called 
Bhow Sahib, who held a subordinate situation in the Raja s 
service for a short period. He accompanied the Mahratta 
army, under Vishwas Rao, to Paniput, where, as is well 
known, he was slain in the battle with the A Afghans. I 
have searched the records with the most experienced Kar- 

* Col. Ovans, as Resident at Sattara, was in possession of copies of the ex- 
Raja’s state seals, and was therefore well aware of the spurious character of 
those of which impressions were forwarded by Mr. Dunlop. 


141 

koons, with the view of finding, if possible, the name of 
Sudasew Bajee Row as Peishwa, but none such is to be 
found. 

The following is the list alluded to in the above letter 

44 Names of the Rajas, Chuttraputtee (kings or emperors) 
of Sattara who created the Peishwas, and of the Peishwas 
who received investiture of office 

Shreemun Maharaj Chatreeyer Koolarwurturouse, 
Ragushri Seevajee Maharaj Chuttraputtee—Sambaji Ma¬ 
haraj Chuttraputtee—Raja Ram Sahib. 

The office of Peishwa during the reigns of these three 
sovereigns being given to persons of different families, their 
names are not here mentioned. 

Shahoo Maharaj Chuttraputtee (king or emperor) the 
First. 

Peishwa—1. Balaji Vishwanath. 2. Bajee Row Bullal. 
3. Ballajee Bajee Row. 

Ram Raj ay Chuttraputtee. 

Peishwa—1. Ballajee Bajee Row. 2. Mahdow Rao 
Bulal. 3. Narain Rao Bulal. 4. Ragunath Bajee Row\ 

Shahoo Maharaj, Chuttraputtee the Second. 

Peishwa—1. Mahadow Rao Narain. 2. Bajee Rao Ragu¬ 
nath. 3. Chimnajee Mahdow Rao. 

Shreemun Maharaj Chatreeyer Koolarwurturouse, Raju- 
shiri Pertaub Sing Chuttraputtee (king or emperor), the 
ex-Raj a. 

Peishwa—1. Bajee Row Ragunath. 2. Yinaek Row. 

On the 15th of January, 1838, Mr. Dunlop submitted 
to the Bombay Government the undermentioned documents. 

1. The deposition of Narain Bhutt Sidhe. 

2. Four original papers obtained from the dependants of 
the late Swamee of Sunkeshwur. 

3. The joint deposition of the three Carbarrys of the late 
Swamee, who brought the seals already alluded to, to Mr. 
Dunlop. 

In his letter* accompanying these documents, Mr. Dun- 
* Par. pa. 830. 


142 


lop makes a pretty fair guess at the real nature of these 
intrigues. Referring to a statement made by Narain Bhut 
Sidhe, as to intended attacks upon the fort at Rutnagherry 
and the treasury at Vingorla, with regard to which; evi¬ 
dence; as we have seen, had been previously taken before 
Mr. Spooner, he observes; “ I cannot judge of the truth 
of the story respecting the pretended attack on Rutna¬ 
gherry; neither do I see what possible purpose it could 
answer. The projected attack on the treasury seems a 
much more feasible speculation; but I am inclined to look 
upon both as schemes contrived by designing men about an 
old dotard (the Swamee) whose ruling passion had perhaps 
survived his judgment , for the purpose of imposing on 
his weakness , and extracting contributions for their own 
benefit.” 

Narain Bhut Sidhe deposes* to the fact of intrigues 
having been carried on between the late Swamee and the 
chief of Sorapoor; and also with Baroda and other places. 
With reference to the Goa affair; he states that an agree¬ 
ment; prepared by Nago Deorao and Raojee KootnesS; 
was come to between the ex-Raj a of Sattara and the Vice¬ 
roy of Goa; and was signed and sealed by the latter. The 
original of this agreement he swears that he had seen in 
the Jamdarkhana; or treasury of the late Swamee of Sun- 
heshur. Yet; as we have seen; Wassoodew Shastry de¬ 
poses that he made copies of this paper for the Swamee; 
while Nago kept the original: and it is remarkable; that 
though Mr. Dunlop was subsequently authorized to threaten 
the present Swamee with the temporary sequestration of 
his villages till this alleged agreement should be produced; 
it has never made its appearance. The inconsistency of 
supposing that Don Manoel would sign a treaty with Nago 
on the part of the ex-Raja in 1829; and delay the mission 
of Erculan to ascertain his authority; till 1831; has already 
been remarked. 

The four papers t obtained from the late Swamee^s depen- 
* Par. pa. 831. f Par. pa. 834. 


143 


dants have no reference to the Goa affair, and need not 
therefore be noticed. 

The deposition of the Carbarrys, who, as stated by 
Narain Bhut Sidhe, were employed in robbing their master 
while on his death-bed, merely state, with reference to the 
Goa intrigue, that the papers and seals alluded to by 
Mr. Dunlop in his letter of the 29th of November, were 
found in the Swamee’s Jamdarkhana. It may be observed 
here, that had papers really existed in the late Swamee’s 
possession which could implicate the ex-Raj a, they would 
have been found with the other documents in the Jam¬ 
darkhana. 

On the 29th of January, Mr. Dunlop forwarded copies 
of two letters addressed by the Swamee to Chintamon 
Rao, the chief of Sanglee, purporting to be in reply to 
verbal communications to the former from the latter. 
These letters, as Sir R. Grant admits,* in no degree impli¬ 
cate the ex-Raj a, and therefore he at once infers that 
Chintamon Rao, though an avowed enemy to his Highness, 
was concealing papers which would criminate him. 

On the 19th of February Mr. Dunlop again wrote f to 
the Bombay Government, forwarding the following papers 
procured by Ram Row Akburnivees, through the influence 
of the present Swamee of Sunkeshwur. 

1. A letter, alleged to be original, from the ex-Raja to 
Don Manoel. 

2. A letter from Don Manoel to the ex- Raja. 

3. A letter from Don Manoel to the late Swamee. 

Ballajee Punt Jogleykur, the agent through whose 

means these papers were obtained, and whose conduct 
and evidence are worthy of the cause in which he was 
employed, deposes{ as follows: “ In this manner I have 
produced three original papers: the reason of their being- 
all three in one place is, that Nago Deorao Yyd and Irkooloo 
Doctor, between these two the confidential person was 
Raojee Kootness, in whose house the said Nago Deorao Vyd 
* Par. pa. 167. t Par. pa. 847. + Par. pa. 850. 


144 


resided, through whom the papers belonging to both parties 
were obtained there,, this state intrigue being carried on 
secretly: therefore they, with a view that it should not be 
divulged^ used to lodge them there in one place by Nago 
Deorao, Irkooloo Doctor, and Raojee Kootness : the above- 
mentioned Raojee Kootness^s house is at Arbay: his 
brother is also there; from whom the above-mentioned 
letters were obtained—through the intervention of Balum 
Bhut Moonjykur and Sablee Purub Desaee (the former of 
whom; it must be remembered; was a member of Nago\s 
Mundullee party). The above-named people would not 
give me the original letters; because they began to say that 
I would bring and deliver them to the gentlemen on the 
part of the English Government; and therefore they would 
not give them. I then said; that destruction would fall 
on the Sumusthan of the Free Swamee of Sunkeshwur; 
therefore if they gave these papers, I would, without deli- 
livering them to any body, take them to the Swamee, and 
after showing them to him, destroy them: to which effect 
I swore , and gave them assurance” 

The above deposition and the documents produced by 
the deponent, were forwarded to Colonel Ovans at Sattara, 
and Raojee Kootness, Dajee Bulal Waeed, and Hurry 
Bulal Fatuk* were examined as to the genuineness and 
authenticity of the latter; each of these witnesses, how¬ 
ever, declared himself unacquainted with the writing or 
seals of these papers, and Raojee Kootness denied that 
they were in his house when he left it. These documents 
were therefore forgeries, and as such, afford most important 
evidence of the spurious character of the other papers pro¬ 
duced to criminate the ex-Raj a. The contents of the 
first of them, with the exception of the date, correspond 
with those of No. 4 of list e, accompanying Colonel 
Ovans’s letter of the 11th November, 1837j> and which 
has been already alluded to; and the second is exactly 
similar to the alleged letter from Don Manoel to the ex- 
* Par. pa. 851, 852. 


145 


Raja, marked c, in the same list. They were, therefore, 
fabricated by some person intimately acquainted with the 
details of the alleged intrigue ; and obtained as they were 
through Balum Bhut Moongykur, who was one of Nago’s 
Mundullee, it is hardly possible to doubt that they were 
the production of some one of that party. If, then, some 
of the papers produced by the party are counterfeits, we are 
surely justified in entertaining some suspicion of the 
genuineness of the others. 

Sir R. Grant,* in his anxiety not to give up anything 
which may tend to increase the proofs against the ex-Raj a, 
e( is disposed to think that some mystery is connected 
££ with these documents: and that it is not impossible that 
ee they may have been the drafts from which the genuine 
C( letters with which they correspond were written:” and 
though he admits, that, “ being quite unauthenticated, 
“ they cannot be used to impeach any person,” yet, with 
singular inconsistency, he considers that (( they add mate- 
C£ rially to the evidence obtained, regarding the general fact 
“ of the existence of the Goa intrigues.” Drafts, how¬ 
ever, would hardly have been signed and sealed by the 
parties, in whose names they were alleged to have been 
written. 

Other documents, having relation to a supposed intrigue 
between the late Swamee and the Raja of Soorapoor were 
subsequently forwarded to the Bombay Government by 
Mr. Dunlop ; with respect to which Sir R. Grant, with a 
show of impartiality says,t “ The Raja of Sattara not 
being even named in any of these documents, it would be 
most unjust, without further inquiry, to include them 
among the proofs on which any conclusion unfavourable 
to the character of that Prince is made to rest.” This was 
but a momentary feeling, however, for in a subsequent 
paragraph of the same minute, J we find this insinuation : 
ee On the whole I am disposed to conjecture that the chief 
of Soorapoor having become involved in pecuniary distress, 
• Par. pa. 168. t Par. pa. 169. t Par. pa. 170. 

L 


146 


an attempt was made at Sattara to obtain a loan for him ; 
and as this could scarcely be obtained without the assist¬ 
ance of the Raja, who was not likely to lend such assistance 
without looking for some return, and as the Raja is proved 
to have been engaged at this very time in hostile measures 
against us in other quarters, there is in my opinion, probable 
ground for the information received from Mr. Wathen 
before these papers came into our possession, namely, that 
it was a part of the plans of the Raja to induce the Soora- 
poor chief to become a party to these hostile measures/ 5 

The substance of the information alluded to as having 
been received by Mr. Wathen was, that Raojee Kootness 
had been deputed by the Raja of Sattara to the chief of 
Soorapoor, to endeavour to persuade him to assist in 
his projected attempt to expel the British from India. 
This information was communicated* to Colonel Stewart, 
the Resident at Hyderabad, and on the 10th of October, 
1837; be reported that Captain Lee, who was then at 
Soorapoor, “ did not believe Raojee Kootness was ever at 
Soorapoor, and felt convinced that the Raja of that place 
would have seized him, or any other person, who had 
come to Soorapoor on any mission of the nature indicated. 55 

The substance of the evidence taken by Mr. Spooner at 
Rutnagherry was, that in 1836 and 1837:, under the super¬ 
intendence of Nago Deorao, and after his death, of three 
of his associates, named Bappoo Ghatga, Bhawoo Sing 
Purdesee, and Balkoba, a conspiracy had been entered into, 
having for its object the capture of the forts of Ranee, 
Malwan, and Vingorla: that men had been enlisted at 
Pallee by the different leaders for that purpose, but that 
on the plot having been discovered, the parties dispersed, 
and Bappoo Ghatga fled to Araba. 

With the exception of a few hearsay statements, the 
witnesses at Rutnagherry do not attempt to connect the ex- 
Raja of Sattara with this affair; and their testimony only 
shews what was the real character of Nago Deorao and his 
* Par. pa. 169. 


147 

gang, and how little credit is due to those members of it 
who gave evidence at Sattara. 

Sir Robert Grant himself says,* with reference to this 
conspiracy :—I have not the remotest suspicion that any 
of the authorities at Goa countenanced the Pallee plot; 
nor is there the slightest evidence , nor do I consider it 
probable , that it obtained any countenance from Sattara. 
Still these transactions are worthy of attention, as illustra¬ 
ting the character of the persons engaged in them, and the 
nature of the intrigues of which they were the immature 
fruits: but the chief value which I attach to the evidence 
connected with them is, because of the corroboration which 
it gives to the information obtained at Sattara of the history 
of Nago Deorao—of the patronage under which he acted, 
of the objects which he had in view, and of his operations 
in furtherance of his purpose.” So that, in Sir R. Grant’s 
opinion, Nago Deorao, besides the plots in which he was 
engaged as agent of the ex-Raja, was also conducting a 
conspiracy on his own account, having the same object 
as that of his employer, but of which he was kept in 
ignorance. 

“ My colleagues,” continues Sir R. Grant,f “ will not 
fail to observe, that the evidence of Hurbhut Hulbia and 
Ramchunder Bhut (two of the witnesses examined by Mr. 
Spooner) confirms, in several respects, that previously ob¬ 
tained from Sattara respecting Nago Deorao and his pro¬ 
ceedings generally. I particularly refer to the circumstances 
under which he died, and the persons who were present 
with him at the time; his obtaining funds at Sattara, and 
constantly maintaining a communication with that place ; 
and his being employed by the Raja. 

As to the persons present at Nago’s death, we have 
already seen that Dajee Bulal Waeed and Moro Punt Josee 
stated at Sattara that, besides themselves, Balkoba Kelkur 
and Balum Bhut Moongykur were the only others; and 
that Balkoba Kelkur mentioned the same names, with the 
* Par. pa. 175. t Par. pa. 175. 


148 


exception of Balum Bhut Moongykur. Yet Hurbhut 
Hulbia and Ramchunder Bhut, Sir R. Grant’s confirmatory 
witnesses, state, the one* that only Dajee Bulal Waeed, 
Ram Bhow Waeed, and Balkoba were with Nago, and the 
other,t that Ram Bhow Waeed, Dajee Bulal Waeed, Moro 
Punt Josee, Balkoba, and Bappoo Ghatga were his 
companions. 

As to the evidence of Nago’s obtaining funds from 
Sattara, and constantly communicating with that place, 
Hurbhut Hulbia says,{ “the expense of Nana Waeed 
(Nago) in feeding Brahmins and performing religious cere¬ 
monies, &c. was about five rupees a day; the money 
requisite to defray these expenses was not procured from 
Warree, but was sent from time to time from Sattara, at 
least so it was rumoured , but I do not recollect from whom 
I heard these circumstances ” 

Ramchunder Bhut states,§ that Nago Deorao was in 
the habit of sending some of his servants to Sattara, every 
one or two months; that he twice sent a servant, by name 
Mohidum, but that he did not know what Mohidum 
brought from Sattara : and again,|| “It was Nago’s inten¬ 
tion to have got the money from Sattara, but whether he did 
procure any from that place I know not” 

And this is confirmatory of the evidence obtained at 
Sattara, as to Nago’s funds being supplied from that place ! 

With regard to the alleged employment of Nago by the 
ex-Raja, Hurbhut Hulbia deposes,^ as follows: “ Bappoo 
Ghatga, Bhawoo Sing Purdessee, and Balkoba Tattia Kel- 
kur, told some person at Warree , but whose name I do not 
recollect , that the Chief of Nagpoor and Scindia, and other 
Sirdars, intended to wage war with the British, and to take 
possession of their country: I also heard that Nana Waeed 
was deputed to this part of the country by the Raja of 
Sattara,” and on being further questioned,** he says, 

“ Balkoba Tattia Kelkur, Bappoo Ghatga, and Bhawoo 

* Par. pa. 683. t Par. pa. 693. $ Par. pa. 683. $ Par. pa. 693. 

|| Par. pa. 694. IT Par. pa. 083. ** Par. pa. 684. 


149 


Sing Purdessee personally told me, two or three times, that 
all the Sirdars above the Ghauts had entered into a combi¬ 
nation to take possession of the country belonging to the 
British. They did not state the names of the Sirdars, but 
they mentioned that the Raja of Sattara, the chief of 
Meerick, and other Sirdars had entered into combination 
as above stated.” 

Ramchunder Bhut, on being asked for what purpose 
Nago came to Warree, says,* he came for the purpose of 
collecting men from the Konkan, and taking them to 
Sattara, but for what purpose he did not know; and on 
being further asked,f whether he ever heard Nago or his 
associates say, that the Sirdars above the Ghauts had 
entered into combination to attack the British dominions, 
he declares that he never heard this from any person , nor 
did he know anything about it. 

Yet the evidence of Hurbhut Hulbia and Ramchunder 
Bhut, is represented as confirmatory of the fact, that Nago 
was employed as the agent of the ex-Raja. 

Sir R. Grant also refers to the evidence of two other 
of the witnesses examined by Mr. Spooner on this subject, 
named Kasee Naik Petree, and Juggonath Luxumon 
Neerookur, as confirming the intercourse of Nago Deorao 
with Sattara, and that he was said to receive money from 
beyond the Ghauts: and to a report of Dhondo Yishnoo, 
the Government Yakeel at Sawunt Warree, as confirming 
the story of the mission of Mahdoo Rao Sirkey to Goa. 
Referring, however, to the depositions made by the first 
two of these persons, we find that Kassee Naik Petree, J 
says nothing whatever either as to Nago’s communications 
with Sattara, or the source from which his funds proceeded. 
And Juggonath Luxumon Neerookur merely states, § with 
regard to Nago^s means of support, that his daily expenses 
were about five rupees, and he obtained money from a 
merchant named Jelie Pie, who was at Warree; that he 
was in the habit of giving a hoondee on Purshotum Kot- 
* Par. pa. 693. t Par. pa. 694. $ Par. pa. 695. $ Par. pa, 697. 


150 


ness, a brother of Raojee Kootness, and that he (deponent) 
had heard from Balkoba Tattia Kelkur, that Nana Waeed 
received some money from above the Ghauts, but he did 
not say from whom it was received, and witness did not 
know, and on being asked whether Nago did not come on 
the part of the Raja of Sattara, for the purpose of collecting 
men, he says he does not know. 

As to the report of Dhondo Vishnoo,* that person simply 
states that Mahdoo Rao Sirkey made visits from Sattara to 
Warree, but states nothing which can connect those visits 
with the ex-Raj a 5 and as we have seen, Warree was the 
Sirkey^s native place, and there was nothing extraordinary 
in his coming occasionally to visit his home and estates. 

A more improbable story than that upon which the Goa 
charge rests, it would be difficult to imagine, and there is 
every reason to believe that, like the two preceding charges, 
it was the result of a Brahmin conspiracy, whose object 
was the ex-Rajahs ruin. Colonel Ovans declares,f that 
such a conspiracy is a mere fiction, and singularly enough, 
attempts to support his assertion by stating the enmity 
borne by his Highness to the Brahmins generally, and sug¬ 
gesting that it was more probable, that he was conspiring 
to trample upon them. Colonel Ovans admits, that ill feeling 
existed in the mind of the ex-Raj a towards the Brahmins, 
and therefore that they were hostile to him. He can see the 
probability of his Highness exerting himself to degrade the 
qbjects of his dislike, yet considers it beyond belief that 
they should seek his downfall. The arguments of the ex- 
Raj a^s accusers, like their evidence, are all one-sided. 

The number of Brahmin witnesses arrayed against the 
ex-Raj a is amply sufficient to support the proposition con¬ 
tended for. Taking the number as given in a speech of 
the late Mr. Charles Norris, delivered at the East India 
House, on the 29th of July 1842, we find that far from 
the Brahmins forming the minority, as stated by Colonel 
Ovans, they in reality far outnumbered the others. Thus 

* Par. pa. 714. t Par. pa. 1202. 


151 


in the Sepoy case out of 12 witnesses five were Brahmins, 
in the Joudpore case six out of 15, and in the Goa case, no 
less than 35 out of 41. 

The plot itself, Sir R. Grant admits, is almost too absurd 
to conceive: yet in addition to its acknowledged absurdity, 
we are required to believe, upon evidence of the most 
suspicious character, and which the ex-Raj a has had no 
opportunity of falsifying, that his Highness, in the prose¬ 
cution of it, entrusted negotiations of the most important 
nature, to the agency of a gang of robbers, empowering 
them to write and seal letters and treaties in his name, and 
in those of his chief officers, with the contents of which, 
at least when they were written, he was himself unac¬ 
quainted ; the chief agent, moreover, as well as most of his 
followers, being Brahmins, a caste hated and distrusted by 
his Highness, and known to entertain similar feelings 
towards him. We are told too, that these persons, in spite 
of their hatred of their employer, served him faithfully at 
the risk of their lives, for the space of 10 years ; and yet 
that on the death of their leader, the sub-agents in the 
intrigue, though entrusted with a letter of recommendation 
from their late chief to the ex-Raj a, and being themselves 
in a state of the most abject poverty, neither went to his 
Highness for assistance, nor forwarded the letter to him ; 
that after retaining in their possession for the space of 16 
months the papers connected with the intrigue, by means 
of which they might have extorted almost any sum from 
the ex-Raj a, they ultimately sold them to the Resident for 
£40; and that his Highness, although aware in whose 
hands these momentous documents were, made no effort 
whatever to recover or secure them; and all this upon 
exparte evidence, in the face of the denials of the parties 
alleged to have been principally concerned in the intrigue, 
and though no trace of the alleged conspiracy has been dis¬ 
covered by the present Viceroy of Goa. The extreme 
weakness of the case made in this, as in the two preceding 
instances, against the ex-Raj a, is alone, considering the 


152 


manner in which the investigations were throughout con- 
ducted, sufficient to acquit him. 

No less an authority than Sir J. C. Hobhouse, the late 
President of the Board of Control, has expressed his total 
disbelief of the Goa charge, in the following words taken 
from a speech delivered by him in Parliament, on the 23rd 
of June, 1842. 

“ The honourable member has also accused me of be¬ 
lieving that the Raja of Sattara was about to bring 30,000 
Portugese from Goa to invade British India. Where the 
honourable member learned that I know not; I have seen 
some trumpery statement in a newspaper to that effect, but 
there is not a word of truth in it. As President of the 
Board of Control, I knew that these charges were brought 
against the Raja of Sattara, but to say that I believed them, 
is what the honourable gentleman has not the slightest 
foundation for saying.” 

Yet, on a previous occasion, the same Sir J. C. Hob- 
house, utterly disbelieving as he did the principal charge 
against the ex-Raj a, in the course of an interview with 
Captain Cogan, accused* that gentleman of having joined 
a party with Sir Charles Forbes to embarrass the Govern¬ 
ment, and to bring the case before Parliament, and swore 
that he would never allow the Raja to sit on the Gadee 
again—that he would support the Government of India right 
or wrong , and put a stop to these “ turbaned gentlemen” 
(alluding to certain native emissaries of the ex-Raja) filling 
London with their appeals. 

This affords a pretty fair example of the spirit in which 
the Sattara case has been finally decided. 

We are still further justified in assuming that the Goa story 
was discredited by those who made it the chief ground of 
accusation against the ex-Raja, by the fact that, though if 
the tale were true, the late Viceroy of Goa was to the full 
as deeply implicated in the conspiracy as his Highness, and 

* Proceedings at the East India House, 12th and 13th of February, 
1840. 


153 


though documents under his hand and Seal, relating to the 
alleged designs against the British Government, were pro¬ 
duced and treated as genuine, no reference whatever has 
ever been made to the Portuguese Government on the sub¬ 
ject—no demand for an explanation of the secret hostility 
of their officer. 

Aware of the plots that were being carried on against 
him, and having besides ascertained that certain of his 
jewels had been stolen, and others exchanged by the officers 
in charge of his treasury, the ex-Raja instituted an inquiry, 
the result of which disclosed the fact that his seals of state 
had been purloined from the treasury and applied to certain 
forged papers, fabricated for the purpose of being used as 
evidence against him. His Highness immediately caused 
the treasurer and his two assistants to be arrested, who, to 
escape their merited punishment, confessed their guilt. 

Janoo Bin Krustnajee Bhundaree, the keeper of the 
seals, deposed,* that Anna Sindkur, Wiswanath Rungrao, 
Hybutrao, and Bappoo Chitness wrote and prepared the 
papers, and desired of witness that the Sirkaree Sicca 
should be given to them ; and, on his stating that he had 
no orders to part with it, Wiswanath said ,—“ There is no 
necessity for the Sirkar’s order: Anna Sindkur made a set¬ 
tlement after visiting the Sahib, by means of Ballajee Punt 
Kibey.—Certain papers should be prepared and given to 
the British Government, and rewards of Enam villages and 
pensions will be obtained for us; on which we have made 
out the papers; and on being made over to them, after af¬ 
fixing the Siccas to them, a good provision will be made in 
our favour, from which a share will be given to you. To 
fulfil this they will not fail." That, on hearing this, and 
being assured that his name would not be disclosed, de¬ 
ponent delivered the seal to Wiswanath, who affixed it to 
the papers, and returned it. 

Hybut Raof deposed, that Anna Sindkur, in the name of 
Gunputrao Kibey, the nephew of Ballajee Punt Kibey, de~ 
* Additional Par. pa. 9. t Additional Par. pa. 7. 


154 


sired him to procure the seal* promising villages to the 
amount of 10,000 rupees as a reward; and that fifteen 
dowls, and ten or eleven letters having been prepared, the 
seal was obtained from Bhundaree and affixed to the papers 
by deponent and Wiswanath Rungrao. Two of these let¬ 
ters were carried away by Bappoojee Anundrao, and the 
remainder by deponent. The letters taken by deponent 
were kept by him at his house, but were subsequently 
stolen by Anna Sindkur, who gave them to Wiswanath 
Rungrao. The last two persons afterwards stole some of 
the ornaments from the treasury, and changed others : 
Bappoojee Anundrao made alterations in the memorandums 
of the weights of pearls; and Anna Sindkur made false 
entries of receipts and disbursements. On these accounts 
Bhundaree was imprisoned, and deponent proposed to 
Anundrao that one of the sealed papers should be given 
to him in order to effect his release. This, however, the 
prisoner did not desire should be done, unless his life were 
in positive danger. Subsequently Anna Sindkur proposed 
to deliver up the papers to the Resident, but desisted at 
the request of deponent. Anna Sindkur afterwards went 
to Poona, and had a consultation with Bhow Leley, who 
said that Bulwunt Rao Chitness, his Highnesses chief 
secretary, was in confinement there, and that he had pro¬ 
cured a person who could write the dates the same as he 
(the Chitness) did; and that the pension would be thus ob¬ 
tained for Anna, Bhow Leley and deponent; Bhow Leley, 
however, being earnestly requested, consented not to pro¬ 
ceed with his design. 

Anna Sindkur alias Atmaram Luxumon, after stating* 
that various papers had been fabricated by himself and 
others, in the name and under the seal of the ex-Raj a, at 
the instigation of Ballajee Punt Kibey, who promised large 
rewards to the parties concerned in the forgeries, deposed as 
follows : 

“ Subsequently Lodwick Sahib, was succeeded by Ovans 

* Additional par. pa. page 8. 


155 


Sahib, when I was sent for, and taken to the Bungalow 
where Ballajee Kasi Kibey, and Ballajee Narain Nattoo 
were sitting. They addressed me, and said that if I got 
possession of what they had desired, the same should be 
given to them, and the arrangement as had been promised 
by the Kibey would be caused to be made, a liberal reward 
would be granted to me by the Company^ Government. 
When I answered them, I possessed nothing. As I gave 
this answer, the next day Ballajee Punt Kibey sent his 
brother-in-law and took Wiswanath to his house: but as 
the latter came late, the Kibey went to the Bungalow, 
where he (Wiswanath) was taken. In the meantime 
Ballajee Punt Nattoo had gone home, and therefore no 
interview took place between the Kibey and the Nattoo, when 
the brother-in-law of Ballajee Punt Kibey told Wiswanath 
that as the Nattoo had gone home, he should now go away, 
but that he might come whenever he might be sent for. 
Wiswanath then returned: but as the Sirkar was informed 
of Wiswanath’s going to the Bungalow, he was not again 
sent for afterwards, when I understood that Bapajee Senvee, 
a karkoon of Ballajee Punt Nattoo, used to come at night 
to Wiswanath’s house, I took from his handkerchief three 
letters, and two blank dowls, being in all five papers, .and 
kept the same with me.” 

Ballajee Punt Kibey, who is mentioned in the above 
depositions, as one of the instigators of the fabrication of 
these papers, was a servant of the Residency, and an old 
friend and accomplice of Ballajee Punt Nattoo. He it was 
who forcibly extorted* from one Bhow Chandekur, a written 
declaration for the purpose of implicating Balia Sahib 
Chitness, the ex-Raja^s chief Secretary, which was declared 
by Bhow Chandekur in the presence of Colonel Ovans 
himself to have been so obtained by the Kibey. 

The transaction disclosed by the above depositions was 
immediately communicated to the Resident and the Bom¬ 
bay Government by the ex-Raj a, with an earnest request 
that the conduct of the delinquents might be inquired into: 

* Par. pa. 672. 


156 


yet to this request he never received any reply, it being 
considered by the Governor,* as “ a fresh intrigue entered 
into, with a view of aiding in the Rajahs defence,” and 
Colonel Ovans even insinuates,f that the ex-Raj a was 
himself the contriver of the forgeries in his own name. 

The parties implicated were consequently left in prison 
till after the deposition of the ex-Raj a, and a disavowal of 
the facts to which they had sworn as above, was then 
made the condition of their release. Their recantation, 
obtained under duress, is equally worthless with the con¬ 
fession of Govind Row Dewan, and the degree of credit to 
which it is entitled will appear from the following letter, 
subsequently written by Anna Sindkur to one of the ex- 
Raja’s Vakeels in London. The letter is dated the 24th of 
June 1843, and is as follows: 

“ In consequence of the plot, for allowing the seals to be 
put to letters, the Maharaj (ex-Raj a) put me in gaol, and 
after obtaining information, desired me to write on paper 
what had actually taken place, and assured me that after I 
had confronted the other parties, I should be released: this 
did not take place, in consequence of the Raja’s misfortunes, 
through having been sent to Nimb, (the name of the place 
his. Highness was sent to after his deposal.) Appa Sahib 
(the present Raja) told Kessoo Oswunt, that the prisoners 
were of your party, and that they had better speak to the 
ex-Raj a now, to give them their release, (meant ironically), 
but if they staid in prison, he (the new Raja) would not 
pay their expenses. Three of our party were soon released, 
but I was told I should not be allowed my liberty, and 
should suffer much till I had denied in writing all the 
truth I had before stated regarding the seals. Such were 
the intimidations presented to me, and although I felt that 
what I had written to the ex-Raj a was true and known to 
our party, and to prove which I had been detained in prison 
eleven months, they still demanded me to contradict it. I 
then feared that force would be used, and that my life would 

* Par. pa. 246. t Par. pa. 457. 


157 

have been in danger, and wrote whatever they pleased: but 
what I gave to the ex-Raja is the real truth, and if inquiries 
be made where you are, we all (meaning the treasury party,) 
will prove it: and if you like, you may show this very 
letter; but before you do so, you must try and secure me 
protection against the authorities here (meaning Sattara). 
Bhow Sahib, as you are there (in London), I have written 
this, that you should not be kept in darkness, and I hope 
you will not make a great delay in writing to me, that we 
may know of each other. What the prospects of the times 
are, must be known to you ; what can I write more ? 

(Signed) Atmaram Luxumon. 

On the 26th of August, 1839, shortly previous to the 
deposal of the ex-Raja, when Sir James Carnac was at 
Sattara, his Highness gave him some of the forged papers 
connected with this conspiracy, which had then been re¬ 
cently obtained by his Highnesses officers from certain of 
the implicated persons. Yet no inquiry was instituted by 
the Governor, to ascertain the truth or falsehood of the 
serious imputation cast by these papers on the conduct 
and character of Colonel Ovans; and the depositions of 
Bhundaree, Hybutrao, and Anna Sindkur, not only did 
not appear among the papers in the first instance printed 
by the East India Company in connection with the 
ex-Raja^s case, but were carefully suppressed, until the 
case had been so agitated in England, and Colonel Ovans^s 
name had been mentioned in connection with it in such a 
manner that their production was unavoidable. Un¬ 
willing as every one must be, to believe that Colonel Ovans 
was the real instigator of these forgeries, it cannot be dis¬ 
guised, that this attempt to stifle the accusation against 
him, by the suppression of the above depositions, affords 
strong ground for believing that the facts stated in them 
were substantially true. 

In spite of the evident determination to condemn him, 
the ex-Raja still hoped that justice would at last prevail, 


158 


and that he should be allowed at least a hearing. Intent 
upon obtaining an opportunity for proving his innocence, 
he kept up, during the prosecution of the charges against 
him, a voluminous correspondence with his agents in Bom¬ 
bay and elsewhere. His letters, and the answers to them, 
were without his knowledge, opened and inspected by the 
Bombay Government, who, while they hoped by this 
means to obtain fresh proofs to justify them in their in¬ 
tended condemnation of their victim, in fact strengthened 
the case in his favour. For throughout the whole of this 
correspondence, a correspondence, the knowledge of which 
the ex-Baja and his agents believed to be confined entirely 
to themselves, not one word was found which could be 
twisted into an acknowledgment of participation in the 
alleged conspiracies. Had his Highness been really guilty, 
it is impossible to believe otherwise than that these letters 
would have been full of references to the different plots in 
which he was alleged to have been concerned, and to the 
parties implicated with him ; of plans for keeping impor¬ 
tant witnesses out of the way; of bribes to be offered to 
some, and intimidation to be used against others. This in¬ 
tercepted correspondence, useless as it is to the ex-Baja’s 
accusers, is most valuable to his Highness, as affording the 
most convincing evidence not only of his innocence, but of 
his entire ignorance of the particulars of the Nagpoor and 
Goa charges, at the time the letters in question were 
written. 

Let us now see what was the course pursued by the 
Supreme Government of India, with regard to the pro¬ 
ceedings against the ex-Baja. That the views of that 
Government were not, in the first instance, in accordance 
with those of the authorities at Bombay, is sufficiently evi¬ 
dent, from their early letters and minutes upon the subject. 

On the 11th of May, 1837^ shortly after the papers re¬ 
lating to the Sepoy charge had been forwarded to the Go¬ 
vernor-General from Bombay, a minute was recorded by 
the late Mr. Shakspear, then a member of the Supreme 


159 


Government, in which the following forcible passages 
occur.* 

6( For my part, I am not satisfied with the evidence 
against the Raja, and would therefore acquit him altoge¬ 
ther, instead of adopting a half measure, which in my 
humble judgment, even supposing him to be guilty, is 
neither reconcileable with public justice nor with sound 
policy. It is no doubt difficult to divest the affair of all 
suspicion : but when we reflect on the utter want of basis 
(as far as we yet know) on which the plot could have been 
founded; the improbable manner in which the Brahmin 
Untajee commenced his seduction of the Soobahdars; the 
total unworthiness of his evidence, the discrepancies be¬ 
tween the stories first told by the Soobahdars, and their 
subsequent depositions before the Commissioners, and the 
absurd terms in which the Raja is said to have announced 
to the Soobahdars the signs of coming events,—I confess I 
look in vain for anything tangible or solid in the shape of 
proof for my mind to rest upon.” And afterwards, after 
calling attention to some of the discrepancies in the evi¬ 
dence of the different witnesses, he proceeds :—f 

A good deal of stress is laid by the Commissioners on 
the Soobahdars stating, that the ex-Raja was said to be 
desponding, on account of a letter received from Captain 
Hand, that rumours were afloat of a disturbance at Sat- 
tara; the fact of Captain Hand^s having written so to an 
officer of the palace having been ascertained. But it is to 
be observed that the Soobahdars learned this from the 
Brahmins, of whose intimacy with persons at the palace 
there seems no reason to doubt: and if my suspicions are 
well founded, that this intrigue has been got up by the 
Brahmin and the Soobahdars, the information given by 
the former to the latter amounts to nothing at all. 

“ is asked, why I suppose such an intrigue possible ? 
I answer, that it appears from Colonel Lodwick^s letter, (par. 
7) of the 18th August, 1836,t that attempts had been made 
* Par. pa. 70. t. Par. pa. 71. * Par. p. 299. 


160 


some months before to prejudice the Resident against the 
Raja: but that notwithstanding his informant was highly 
respectable, he attached no importance to the information. 
He did not even think it deserving of his report to his 
Government, though it was apparently almost as susceptible 
of proof as this story of the Brahmin. 

“ From this I infer, that there are not wanting persons 
about the palace inimical to the Raja, who would rejoice at 
his degradation, and who would not hesitate to effect it at 
any cost.” 

The reader may be reminded here, that Colonel Lod- 
wick*s informant, alluded to by Mr. Shakspear, was Balla- 
jee Punt Nattoo, the most determined, and from his talents 
the most formidable of the ex-Raj a*s enemies. 

In addition to the objections urged by Mr. Shakspear to 
the evidence in support of the Sepoy charge, the following 
may be cited as one instance of the spirit in which the Re¬ 
port of the Commission was prepared. His Highness, in 
the Commissioners* record of what passed on the 13th of 
day of their proceedings, is represented * to have requested 
the Commission particularly to ascertain from the Brahmin 
Untajee “who first began this conspiracy/* (fittoor) : and 
accordingly, on the 15th day Untajee was recalled, and in¬ 
terrogated f as follows :—Who first commenced this con¬ 
spiracy? Did you begin it , or did the Maharaja? The words 
in italics being added by the Commissioners themselves. 
The question thus altered is commented upon by the Com¬ 
missioners in their report in the following terms : J “ We 
consider the question he requested might be put to the 
Brahmin Untajee as very remarkable, namely. Who began 
this proceeding, the Brahmin or the Maharaja ?** as it tends 
to the impression we had previously entertained, that his 
Highness had become the Brahmin*s dupe.** The reader 
will not fail to observe, that without the words so unwar¬ 
rantably put into the ex-Raja*s mouth by the Commissioners, 


Par. pa. 318. 


t Par. pa. 349. 


t Par. pa. 313. 


1G1 


there would be nothing in the question to warrant the in¬ 
ference drawn by them. 

On the 7th of August, 1837* a letter was written by the 
Government of India to Bombay, which after alluding to 
the ex-Raja 5 s desire to employ Dr. Milne in preparing a 
statement of his case to be laid before Government pro¬ 
ceeds thus.* 

“ In conclusion, I am directed to state the anxious wish 
of his Lordship in Council, to learn at the earliest moment 
possible, what prospect there may be under present cir¬ 
cumstances, of throwing new light upon this subject by 
further investigation ; and,, if the Government should be in 
danger of becoming involved in an indefinite and inconclu¬ 
sive inquiry, in what mode it may be best advisable to 
terminate the proceedings, rather than continue them 
under the inconvenience which the lapse of time, political 
intrigue, and the uncertainty of Indian evidence, combined 
with the obscurity of the case, in regard to its extent and 
importance, must give to them/ 5 

Notwithstanding this caution, the Bombay Government 
persevered in the investigation, and further reports of the 
progress made, produced the two following letters from the 
Governor-General,f dated 2nd and 16th October, 1837- 

Letter from W. H. Macnaghten, Esq., Secretary to the Government of 

India, toW.H. Wathen, Esq., Chief Secretary to the Government of 

Bombay. « October 2nd, 1837. 

(Political Department.) 

“ 1. Sir,—I am desired by the Right Hon. the Governor-General of India 
in Council, to acknowledge the receipt of your several letters, dated the 30th 
August, and 1st and 4th ult., together with their respective enclosures, rela¬ 
tive to intrigues at Sattara. 

“ 2. Copies of the letters to your address, dated the 7th, 21st, and 31st 
of July, referred to in the Acting Resident’s letter of the 12th ult., have not 
been furnished to the Governor-General in Council; but judging from the 
evidence which accompanied your communications now acknowledged, his 
Lordship in Council has no hesitation in stating that his worst apprehensions, 
as expressed in the concluding paragraph of my letter to your address, dated 
August 7th, as to the ‘ danger of becoming involved in an indefinite and in¬ 
conclusive inquiry,’ have every appearance of being fully realized. 

* Par. pa. 99. t Par. pa. 109.. 


162 


“ 3. The Governor-General in Council had mainly relied on the result of 
the investigation which might be instituted, consequent on the alleged 
petition of the Dewan’s mother, for a solution of any doubts which might be 
entertained as to the accuracy of the conclusions formed by the Commission 
on the occasion of the previous inquiry, and for something more of intelligible 
precision in its results. By the Report of the Commission, the Raja of Sat- 
tara was left subject to the imputation of every shade of guilt, from that of 
lending himself to the machinations of the evil disposed, under the influence 
of discontent and partial insanity, and irritated by supposed ill usage, up 
to that of an extensive treason, in a great degree matured, and having for 
its object the entire overthrow of the British power in India. Much of the 
evidence by which even this imperfect result was obtained, was uncertain 
and unsatisfactory; and whilst his Lordship in Council was willing to 
place confidence in the judgment of the Commission, he felt that the case 
was incomplete, and that to justify the Government in any strong and final 
measure, further information was absolutely necessary. But from all the 
papers which have since come before him, he has seen increased reason to 
doubt whether any certain grounds of action can possibly be obtained 
amidst the intrigues, the personal animosities, and the exaggerated rumours 
of all descriptions, by which the investigation into the petty and obscure 
details of the supposed treasonable proceedings of the Raja has been sur¬ 
rounded and embarrassed. 

u 4. The evidence relative to the alleged intercourse of the Raja of Sattara 
with the ex-Raja of Nagpore, as detailed in the documents which accom¬ 
panied your letter of the 1st ult., is, in the opinion of his Lordship in 
Council, in the highest degree suspicious. The alleged communication 
between Yellojee Bappoo and the ex-Raja of Nagpore, is admitted to have 
originated in some domestic concern. The evidence of that individual 
and his servant are full of discrepancies ; and it was only after repeated 
cross examinations that they were induced to implicate the Raja of Sattara 
as having any knowledge of the communications. It is remarkable that 
Yellojee is represented as having been the person through whose means the 
intercourse between the Raja of Sattara and the ex-Raja of Nagpore was 
first set on foot ; and yet the two witnesses, Abba Mareek and his servant 
Wittoo, deposed that the latter was sent to Joudpore to ask whether Yellojee 
Bappoo sent people there. 

“5. The Governor-General in Council sees little or nothing in the evi¬ 
dence recorded in the documents which accompanied your letter of the 4th 
ult. to inculpate the Raja. There is no direct evidence against his Highness, 
of any kind, as regards the supposed intrigue with the Hubshee, save that 
the Hubshee’s Vakeel, who was a relative of Bulwunt Row Cliitnavees, was 
introduced to his Highness; that the Raja read a letter, and afterwards 
threw it into the fire, and that he received a present of cocoa-nuts from 
Bulwunt Row Chitnavees. Against the last-named individual no criminality 
is established. There is nothing of a treasonable nature in the paper found 
concealed in the doll, and if there was, evidence has been given to prove 
that he (the Chitnavees) was not the author of its contents. His Lordship 
in Council, of course, attaches no weight to the unsupported rumours of in¬ 
trigues in all directions, alluded to by the witnesses whose depositions accom¬ 
panied your letter of the kth ultimo. His Lordship in Council observes, 
that the expressions contained in the 6th paragraph of j our letter to the 


163 


Acting Resident, that the witness Wittul Row Parisnees himself saw poshak 
(clothes) ‘ and a sword sent to the Raja from the Hubsliee/ would appear 
to imply more than was actually stated by the witness, as his Lordship in 
Council cannot discover that Wittul Row asserted he saw the things in 
question actually sent to the Raja. 

“ 6. As for the alleged combinations icith the Portuguese and with 
Arabia , alluded to in the documents which accompanied your letter of the 
31st ult., the Governor-General in Council could not but regard such plots 
(even had the accounts which had been furnished of them seemed less im¬ 
probable than they do), to be too extravagant to be entertained for a mo¬ 
ment by any person in his senses ; while it appears from the Report of 
the Commission that the Raja of Sattara is by no means deficient in under¬ 
standing. 

“ 7. The Acting Resident in the ninth paragraph of his letter to your 
address, dated the 12th ult. observes, the time necessary to bring these pro¬ 
ceedings to a close will necessarily be prolonged. And with reference to 
this declaration, to the length of time which has already elapsed since this 
investigation commenced, and to the excitement and alarm which inquiries 
so extended and protracted must necessarily occasion, I am desired to re¬ 
peat the suggestion contained in the concluding paragraph of my letter, 
dated the 7th of Angust, and yet more strongly to urge the inconvenience 
and uncertainty of these proceedings, and the absolute necessity of bringing 
them to an early termination. In the hopelessness that all further evidence 
will be otherwise than inconclusive, and looking to the utmost degree of 
criminality, which in any view of the testimony before the Commission 
may be regarded as clearly and absolutely established ; looking, too, to the 
interval which has since elapsed in inquiries leading to no further definite 
and important disclosures, his Lordship in Council would gladly find that the 
Right Honourable the Governor in Council is disposed to concur with him 
in opinion, and would close the proceedings; apprising the Raja that, 
although several suspicious circumstances regarding his Highness have been 
elicited during the progress of this inquiry, yet the British Government is 
unwilling, without the clearest proof of guilt, to condemn any of its allies, 
especially one who has been so pre-eminently the object of its favour and 
generosity ; that further investigation is deemed inexpedient with reference 
to the general inconvenience it creates ; and that the Right Honourable the 
Governor in Council is therefore pleased to close the inquiry, with the ex¬ 
pression of his hope that the Raja will so conduct himself for the future as 
to avoid the predicament (no less painful to the British Government than to 
his Highness) in which he has been recently placed. 

« 8 Ag re g ar ds the Dewan, who is now understood to be in confinement 

at Ahmednuggur, his Lordship in Council observes, that if the suggestion 
contained in this letter should be adopted, the liberat.on of the individual 
in question will probably follow the cessation of further inquiry into the 
conduct of the Raja. 

u I have the honour, &e. 

(Signed) “ W. H. Macnagiiten, 

Secretary to the Government of India.” 


M 2 


(( Fort William, Oct. 2, 1837. 


164 


Letter from W. H. Macnaghten , Esq., Secretary to the Government, to 

W. H. Wathen, Esq., Chief Secretary to the Government of Bombay.. 

dated IQth October , 1837. 

(Political Department.) 

U 1 am desired by the Right Honourable the Governor-General of 
India in Council, to acknowledge the receipt of your several letters of the 
dates noted in the margin, together with their several respective enclosures, 
on the subject of the inquiry into the conduct of the Raja of Sattara. 

“ 2 * The proceedings reported in the communications now acknowledged 
are not, I am desired to state, such as to meet the approbation of his Lord- 
ship in Council. 

“3. That the Raja of Sattara, forgetful of all former obligations, and 
nettled by an alleged grievance, is disaffected to the British Government, 
and that he has been led by designing people, enemies either to him or to the 
British Govornment, into acts intended to be injurious to that Government, 
may be conceded; but the result of the latter proceedings of the Right 
Honourable the Governor in Council has, I am desired to add, tended rather 
to weaken than to strengthen the case against him, for they prove either the 
falsehoodwhich is mingled with these accusations, or the imbecility with which 
the Raja is capable of entertaining projects of so wild a description. Ex¬ 
cept from the statement which may possibly be made by Govind Row, his 
Lordship in Council sees nothing in all this evidence which is likely to throw 
light upon the conduct of the Raja, so far as it is proper or incumbent on us 
to inquire into it; and under the circumstances of recent strict duresse, and 
expected liberty, under which this evidence is to be elicited, it must be 
received with very considerable caution. 

4. Adverting to these considerations, I am desired to state that the papers 
now acknowledged have strongly confirmed the Governor-General in Council 
in the opinion already expressed, that this perplexed and protracted scrutiny 
should be at once brought to a conclusion, or at least that all the collateral 
inquiries which have been in so many quarters instituted should be discon¬ 
tinued as soon as practicable, it being for the real interests of the British 
Government, whilst it watches and represses with vigilance and firmness the 
active movements of insurrection, to disregard rumours, and even, in many 
cases, the realities of petty and obscure intrigues ; dependence being placed 
for the internal power of the empire upon its own manifest strength and the 
fears of the disaffected, of whom, in the very nature of things, from the 
transfer of power and property, there must be many, and upon the general 
interests of the population, which cannot but be opposed to violent commo¬ 
tion. His Lordship in Council is sorry at feeling himself compelled to add, 
that in the present instance the idea of distrust and insecurity on the part 
of the British Government may have been widely spread,from Rajpootana 
to Madras and Malabar, though the affair is one of no real importance to 
our power. 

“ 5. Against the further prosecution of these hazardous proceedings, the 
Governor-General in Council deems it incumbent upon him to interfere, so 
as to prevent any further aggravation of this evil. I am desired, there¬ 
fore, to convey the request of his Lordship in Council, that the Right 


165 


Honourable the Governor in Council of Bombay, will be pleased to abstain 
from all further inquiries upon collateral points, or other measures of this 
nature, leading, as they must do, to nothing but futile and discreditable 
results. 

“ 6. The Governor-General in Council will look with some anxiety, 
though under the circumstances, not without suspicion, to any further 
confession which he may offer to support by direct and substantial proof 
which may be made by Govind Row, as tending to weaken or confirm the 
original charge adduced against the Raja or any of his family, of attempt¬ 
ing to seduce our sepoys from their allegiance; and he is of opinion that 
whatever the Raja of Sattara may have further to state in reply to those 
charges, should be fairly taken into consideration before any measures ad¬ 
verse to his Highness can be taken upon the proceedings already held. 

“ 7. With regard to Dr. Milne, I am desired to state, that though it was 
intended that his personal statements should not be rejected, it was not de¬ 
signed to admit him as the partisan and advocate of the Raja, and that his 
intercourse with the Raja is expressly placed under the control of the Bom¬ 
bay Government. 

“ 8. I am desired at the same time to state, with reference to the altered 
state of European society, and to the freedom of access to this country now 
granted, that the policy may be questionable of discouraging respectable 
individuals like Dr. Milne, from undertaking the defence of natives of rank, 
who would probably be driven by such discouragement to resort to the aid 
of adventurers, careless alike of the reputation of the accused, and of their 
own Government. 

° I have, See., 

(Signed) “ W. H. Macnaghten, 

Secretary to the Government of India.” 

“ Fort William, Oct. 16, 1837.” 

“ p. s. —Since the above was written, your letters of the 27th and 28th 
ultimo, with their respective enclosures, have been received ; but I am de¬ 
sired to state, that the contents of those communications do not alter the 
views which the Governor-General in Council entertains of the impolicy of 
the collateral proceedings recently held under the authority of the Right 
Honourable the Governor in Council; and his Lordship in Council still 
adheres to the wish already expressed, that the proceedings against the 
Raja shall be brought to a termination as soon as possible. 

(Signed) “ W. H. Macnaghten.” 

These letters, as might be expected, made a deep im¬ 
pression on the Bombay Government, and it was in com¬ 
menting on the former of them that Sir R. Grant made 
the unfortunate admission already alluded to, that the 
character of the Bombay Government was almost as deeply 
committed on the event of the Sattara discussions as that 
of the ex-Raja; an admission fully sufficient to account for 


166 


the indefatigable exertions subsequently made to prove the 
guilt of His Highness, and consummate his ruin. In con¬ 
sequence of the above letters, inquiries which had been 
commenced as to other intrigues in which the ex-Raja was 
said to have been concerned, were discontinued, and the 
investigations were confined to the three charges already 
mentioned. It was not until June, 1838, that the inquiries 
of the Bombay Government were finally concluded, and 
the whole of the voluminous papers relating to the three 
charges, together with the prodigiously long minutes of 
Sir R. Grant, to which allusion has been frequently made, 
were then forwarded to the Governor-General with a letter,* 
stating the unanimous opinion of the members of the 
Bombay Government, that the ex-Raja was in each case 
guilty, and proposing that his territories should be taken 
from him and resumed by the British Government. 

That Sir R. Grant and his colleagues should have thus 
recorded their perfect conviction of the ex-Raj a^s guilt 
before he had been heard in his own defence, or had even 
been made acquainted with the charges against him, while 
they admitted, as we shall see that they did, that he was 
entitled to such an advantage before the case was finally 
decided, is a step that cannot be justified. The motive is 
evident; their character, deeply committed as Sir R. Grant 
describes it to have been, could in their opinion be retrieved 
only by the conviction of the ex-Raja; and they were 
accordingly resolved that the case against him should not 
be presented to the Governor-General without an accom¬ 
paniment of every argument that could be suggested in its 
support. 

That it was intended to give his Highness a fair hearing 
or trial upon all the charges brought against him before 
declaring him guilty, appears clearly from the Parliamen¬ 
tary Papers. 

In Sir R. GranPs minute of the 15th August, 1837/i* 
* Par. pa. 210. t Par. pa.86. 


167 

he says,, “ I am further strongly of opinion that before 
the case is conclusively disposed of, the Raja should be 
made acquainted with the fresh evidence that has been 
elicited against him, and should be allowed the opportunity 
of offering defence or explanation. 5 * 

And again, in a minute, dated the 20th September, 1837,* 
e ^ think also that Colonel Ovans should be instructed to 
prepare a complete statement of the case which has been 
established against the Raja, in order that when his 
inquiries are concluded, it may be furnished to his High¬ 
ness for any such explanation or answer as he may choose 
to offer. 55 And in his minute of the 31st of May, 1838,f 
he observes ,— ec It will be asked, however, whether he (the 
Raja) is to be condemned without the opportunity of de¬ 
fending himself. The Raja has not been told of the evi¬ 
dence taken by Lieutenant-Colonel Ovans, and undoubt¬ 
edly has a right to be heard in his own vindication. I have 
never meant otherwise, although I do not think that he 
will vindicate himself successfully. 55 He then quotes the 
passage cited above from the minute of the 15th August, 
1837; a nd proceeds — C( I repeat that opinion, not meaning 
that there should be merely the form or farce of a trial, to 
be closed by a ready-made judgment, but that the defence 
should be fairly heard and impartially weighed. 55 

Mr. Anderson, then a member of the Bombay Govern¬ 
ment, in a minute, dated the 22nd May, 1838,J observes, 
“ I do not know what is the course the Right Honourable 
the Governor proposes should be finally pursued : but I 
think that if a final decision or full report is made to the 
Honourable Court, that it will be just that the Raja should 
have an opportunity of affording an explanation of what is 
considered to be established against his Highness. For this 
end, I think the various facts found, showing the Raja to 
have been implicated in intrigues and conspiracies, having 
for their end the subversion of the British authority should 
be succinctly stated to his Highness, and that his Highness 
* Par. pa. 100. t Par. pa. 205. * Pur. pa. 177. 


168 


should be informed that Government is very willing to 
receive an explanation of what is considered to be established 
against his Highness.” 

And Mr. Farish, also, then a member of the Bombay 
Government, in a minute dated the 4th of June, 1838,,* 
observes, ££ as regards the particular measure proposed of 
making the Raja acquainted with the charges proved against 
him, and giving him the opportunity of defence, although 
in the peculiar position of the case, it seems to me hardly 
necessary, yet as exhibiting to the native powers the equit¬ 
able course we desire to adopt, as showing to him every 
lenient consideration, and awarding to him the fullest pos¬ 
sible measures of justice, I do not hesitate to assent cor¬ 
dially to it.” 

Even Colonel Ovans remarks in one of his reports, that 
££ It is to be recollected also, that up to this time, the Raja 
has had no clear idea of the evidence which has transpired 
against him.” 

That his Highness was entitled to be heard in his 
defence was not however admitted by Sir R. Grant without 
qualification. ££ Whatever/’ says he,f “ be the mode of 
trial or inquiry we adopt, yet if the Raja is to have 
the opportunity of offering evidence, and I conceive that he 
ought, it is essential that he be placed in the same situation 
with any other accused person, and enjoy the same advan¬ 
tages, but no more.—Pending the trial or other proceeding, 
therefore, his functions of sovereignty should be suspended. 
His ample wealth and despotic power furnish him with al¬ 
most unlimited means of procuring favourable evidence by 
corruption, and of deterring by violence or intimidation all 
evidence of another character : and of these means, if left 
in his hands, he is likely to avail himself without scruple. 
Such a perversion of justice it is essential to prevent, and 
this may, I conceive, be done in the manner I have pro¬ 
posed. Let the accused be allowed the widest latitude and 
the utmost facility of defence, but let him be disarmed for 
* Par. pa. 2U7 f Par. pa. 205. 


169 


the time of the ability to defeat j ustice by introducing false¬ 
hood and excluding truth.” 

The suspicion that the ex-Raj a would have recourse to 
violence and intimidation and corruption, to support his 
case, does not come with a very good grace from those who 
had consigned Govind Row Dewan and Rowlojee Naik to a 
dungeon for no other cause than their refusal to give evi¬ 
dence against his Highness; and who had sanctioned the 
transactions before alluded to with Bhow Leley and Balkoba 
Kelkur ; but there was in reality no ground for such a sus¬ 
picion. In the course of the proceedings of the Commis¬ 
sion at Sattara, we find no record of anything of the kind; 
and so far from meeting with obstruction in the prosecution 
of his inquiries, the Resident had only to require the atten¬ 
dance of such of the ex-Raja^s subjects, as he wished to 
examine, and they were immediately delivered up. Through¬ 
out the whole affair, indeed, the only desire shewn by his 
Highness was for a full and fair examination of the charges 
against him. 

The ample wealth and despotic power of which Sir R. 
Grant expresses so much ahum, are thus described by the 
Bombay Government in their despatch to the Secret Com¬ 
mittee of the 15 th September, 1836.* 

“ His revenues do not exceed fourteen lacs of rupees 
per annum, and his military resources are contemptible, and 
totally inadequate for the enterprise he has undertaken.” 

Indeed, the result of the proceedings against him is suf¬ 
ficient to shew, that whatever power the ex-Raja had could 
avail him but little when opposed to the British Govern¬ 
ment. As to the probability of his using it as suggested 
by Sir R. Grant, it appears from the Parliamentary papers 
that his Highness on three occasions, the 19th June, 1837,t 
the 17th of July, 18374 and the 24th of July, 1837 j> offered 
at once to surrender his territories into the keeping of the 
British, provided a fair and impartial hearing were granted 
him. Whatever, therefore, were the means at the ex-Raja^s 
* Par. pa. 2. t Par. pa.577. \ Par. pa. 582. 


i7o 

disposal^ he seems to have thought little of using them for 
the purpose of suborning evidence. 

The Bombay authorities; with the exception of Mr. 
Anderson; agreed with their chief that the suspension of 
the ex-Raja during his proposed trial was a necessary 
measure: that gentleman; though in opposition to his col" 
leagues; has recorded his sentiments as follows * “ I should 
not; however; consider it a wise course to depose the Raja 
whilst any inquiry is going on; be that inquiry of what 
nature it may. 

“It would be a shock to the feelings of the people; whether 
high or low, to find a sovereign so treated. They would 
scarcely; I should say certainly; not respect our motives. 
The degradation to the Prince would be thought of; not our 
sense of justice: and the cause would rather be attributed 
to our weakness than our strength. I do not think it 
either necessary. The same end can be gained without it; 
and the influence or power of the Raja to injure could for 
such a purpose be prevented by our guarantee and assurance 
of protection/ 5 

Those; however; who knew the probable value of the 
evidence against the ex-Raja better than Mr. Anderson; 
were very unwilling that his Highness should not be alto¬ 
gether suspended from power while the trial was going on : 
and Sir Robert Grant; in his minute of the 8th of June; 
1838;+ enables us to see; that the objection to leaving the 
ex-Raja at this moment in possession of power was felt 
principally by Colonel OvanS; “ who so well understands 
the case ” giving utterance; doubtless; to the sentiments of 
Ballajee Punt NattoO; who understood it much better. 

“I observe,” says Sir R. Grant, “that Mr. Anderson is 
adverse to the deposal of the ex-Raja while defending him¬ 
self. I am quite willing to leave this point to the determi¬ 
nation of the Governor-General, to whom it more properly 
appertains; but I am still, I confess, impressed with the 
idea of the extreme difficulty, if not impracticability, of bring- 
* Par. pa. 209. f Par. pa. 209. 


171 

mg this matter to a fair and just issue, if his Highness is to 
make his defence while in possession of all those vast 
means of corrupting and falsifying the case, which we know 
to be at his command, and which he is likely to employ 
with so little scruple. The persuasion, also, has become 
general among his subjects that he is certain, or nearly so, 
of acquittal, though that consummation may be delayed 
by the intrigues of the Bombay Government. The moral 
effect of this persuasion, aided by the free use of the means 
above-mentioned, is sure to give him a large body of wit¬ 
nesses, ready to swear exactly as he may choose to dictate. 
As a counteractive to these mischiefs, Lieutenant-Colonel 
Ovans, who so well understands the case , has again and 
again declared that a suspensio ad interim (for, after all, it 
is only a suspension, not a deposal) is an absolutely essential 
measure. Now, if any step short of his suspension could 
gain that object, let it by all means be adopted; but, after 
all, I see there is none other which will both afford efficient 
protection to true witnesses, and secure us against the inun¬ 
dation of false evidence.” 

The moral effect of a persuasion that the ex-Raja would 
be ultimately acquitted, Sir R. Grant thought would bring 
forward scores of false witnesses in his favour. What did 
he think would be the moral effect of suspending his High¬ 
ness’s authority ? Would not that, in like manner, en¬ 
courage his enemies to give false evidence against him ? 
What was the moral effect of the rewards given to the wit¬ 
nesses in the Sepoy case, of the imprisonment of the Dewan 
and others, and of the transactions with Bhow Leley and 
Balkoba Kelkur ? The vendor of falsehood must have been 
indeed undiscerning, who, with these things before his eyes, 
should have dealt with the ex-Raja rather than with his 
accusers. 

The voluminous documents connected with the case of 
the ex-Raja reached the Governor-General at a time when 
he was necessarily much occupied by Affghan politics, and 
it is but too probable that the decision to which he ultimately 


172 

came upon it was founded rather on the strong opinions ex¬ 
pressed by Sir R. Grant and his colleagues, than on a delibe¬ 
rate consideration of the evidence itself. It must be remem¬ 
bered too, that many of the circumstances mentioned in 
the preceding pages, affecting the characters of the different 
witnesses, and showing their hostility to the ex-Raj a, were 
not at that time brought to light. 

The Governor-General, however, coincided in opinion 
with the Bombay Government as to the ex-Rajahs guilt, 
and on the 24th of September, 1838, forwarded a minute* to 
that effect to Bombay. With reference to his Highnesses 
right to be heard in his defence, he says:j*—“ In this in¬ 
stance, if the Raja should eventually demand to be con¬ 
fronted with the witnesses against him, and to be placed on 
his trial, or even if he should not himself make that demand, 
but the written explanation or defence which I would pro¬ 
pose, in the first instance, to require from him should seem, 
as it very possibly may, to leave a necessity for some 
further proceeding, there may perhaps be no alternative to 
such a mode of final examination and disposal of the case, 
however cumbrous, dilatory, and inconvenient it must be felt 
to be. Commissioners of high rank and character from the 
other Presidencies, if necessary, might be assembled for the 
purpose. Detailed orders would, in such a case, if we are 
forced to the measure, be necessary on the precise mode of 
trial, and all the other circumstances attending the pro¬ 
cedure to which allusion is made in the letters from 
Bombay. But it would be premature to enter at all upon 
these points at present. 

“As the first step, I would, as suggested by Sir R. 
Grant, request that the Raja should be furnished with a 
written statement, embodying a full and clear detail of the 
facts connected with the several charges, and of the names 
(with any reservations absolutely required for the safety of 
the party) of the witnesses by whom they are proved, with 
a notice of the circumstances under which the evidence was 


Par. pa. 228. 


t Par. pa. 229. 


173 

obtained; and call for from him; within a certain reasonable 
time^ to be fixed; a similar written statement of whatever he 
may desire to urge in his own behalf. The acting Resident 
will; of course; take care; by every means in his power; to 
see that his guarantee to witnesses are; in letter and spirit; 
fully maintained.” 

This letter reached Bombay in October; 1838; and on 
the thirteenth of that month Sir R. Grant recorded a 
minute* expressing his unfeigned; and no doubt sincere; 
satisfaction at its contents. Colonel Ovans was subsequently 
directed to prepare such a statement of the case as was 
suggested by the Governor-General. 

The Resident at Sattara; however; understood the case 
too well to follow the directions of the Governor-General 
without making every effort in his power to persuade his 
superiors that they were unnecessary; and on the 30th of 
November; 1837, he wrote a letter to the Bombay 
Government;*]- from which the following are extracts:— 

“In Mr. Secretary Wathen^s letter to my address under 
date the 27th of September last I am directed to prepare 
a complete statement of the case established against the 
Raja; that it may be furnished to the Raja; and that; if this 
statement be denied; his Highness should be confronted with 
the witnesses; the most effective measures being adopted 
for their protection. 

“ With reference to these instructions; I beg leave most 
respectfully to submit the following observations:—the 
necessity for bringing this inquiry to a final close; will; I 
think; be admitted on all hands; and also; that whatever 
steps are now taken; should be with a view of ensuring 
this important object. 

“ But I must beg to express my doubts whether furnish¬ 
ing the Raja with copies of the statement above alluded to 
will do this. It is clear that time will be demanded to 
prepare the reply; that it will be sent to Bombay to be 
commented upon there; and that no conclusive or satis- 
* Par. pa. 230. t Par. pa. 422. 


174 

factory answer will be given. Instead of refuting the facts, 
it is much to be feared that the same course will be pur¬ 
sued now as formerly, at the time of the Commission (viz. 
to defame the character of the evidence), and that a mass 
of irrelevant statements will be produced, which it will be 
difficult either to reject or to receive.” 

No doubt if the ex-Raj a had had the advantage of the 
proposed statement, he would have at once proceeded, 
and surely he would have been justified in so doing, not 
to defame, but to point out the real characters of the wit¬ 
nesses against him: a course which the Resident is quite 
right in representing as much to be feared by those who 
had got up the evidence. But what right had Colonel 
Ovans to assume that the facts would not be refuted, that 
no satisfactory answer would be given, and that only irre¬ 
levant statements would be produced ? 

“ With respect to the witnesses,” continues the letter, 
“ the probability is, that instead of permitting himself to 
be confronted with them, the Raja will demand that they 
may be given up to him to be examined by himself, and 
under any circumstances, I beg most strongly to represent 
the impossibility, as matters at present stand, of affording 
them that protection which I conceive we are imperatively 
called upon to extend to them. 

“ If, for instance, the confession of Govind Row is to be 
communicated to the Raja, the ruin of his mother and 
family will be the immediate consequence. They are at 
present in the enjoyment of a large pension from his High¬ 
ness, on which they and all their household entirely depend 
for daily bread, and though their persons may be protected 
from open violence, the condition to which they will be re¬ 
duced by their adherence to us will be deplorable.” 

And what if his Highness had asked that the witnesses 
should be given up to be examined by himself? Colonel 
Ovans had already questioned them all in his absence, and 
why should not the ex-Raja be entitled to the same advan¬ 
tage ? As to the safety of the witnesses, as far as we can 


175 

judge from the records of the proceedings, they were far 
less likely to meet with persecution or intimidation at the 
hands of the ex-Raj a, than from the Resident: and the 
excessive anxiety expressed by Colonel Ovans on their 
account, it is impossible to believe that he really felt. 

The Resident then proceeds to point out what he con¬ 
siders the most judicious course to pursue. “ That which 
I think/" says he, “ holds out the best prospect of meet¬ 
ing the views of Government, would be to read over all 
the evidence in the presence of the Raja, and any two or 
three of his native advisers whom he chooses to select, to 
confront the witnesses with him at the same time, and 
then immediately to take down whatever defence he has 
to offer, as well as to summon and examine any witnesses 
on his own behalf whom he may name. This, I think, 
would answer all the real and substantial ends of justice, 
and would, it is to be hoped, bring matters at once to a 
close."" 

Should Colonel Ovans’s own character ever become the 
subject of judicial inquiry, his ideas of justice will most 
probably undergo some alteration. The reader may be left 
to judge how far the substantial ends of justice would be 
answered by the course proposed, and what amount of talent 
and acuteness would be required to frame an instantaneous 
defence to charges, which Sir R. Grant wrote minutes of 
upwards of 600 paragraphs to prove, and the evidence in 
support of which Colonel Ovans had been 18 months em¬ 
ployed in collecting. 

The arguments of the Resident, however, seemed un¬ 
answerable to the authorities in India; and the proposed 
statement was not furnished to the ex-Raja. 

Towards the close of the year 1838, the Government of 
Bombay became vacant by the death of Sir R. Grant, and 
Sir James R. Carnac, who, previous to his leaving England, 
was supposed to entertain opinions favourable to the ex- 
Raja, was appointed his successor. It is clear, indeed, 
both from this appointment and from their previous pro- 


176 


ceedings, that the sentiments of the Court of Directors 
are up to this time in favour of his Highness. On the 
13th of June, 1838, after receiving reports of the protracted 
inquiries which the Bombay Government were conducting, 
the Court of Directors intimated* to the Governor-General, 
“ That it would be not only a waste of time, but seriously 
detrimental to the character of our Government, to carry 
on any further inquiry in the matter;” and on the 22nd of 
January, 1839, after receiving the Governor-General’s 
minute of the 23rd September, 1838, already alluded to, 
the Secret Committee wrote as follows :f “ As Sir James 
Carnac, the Governor of Bombay, has been in communica¬ 
tion with us on the subject of your proceedings, regarding 
the Raja of Sattara, we are particularly desirous that you 
should suspend any final decision on the case until you 
have had an opportunity of taking into your consideration 
such observations and suggestions as may be made to you 
by Sir James Carnac on a review of those proceedings. 

“ In the mean time, it may be as well for us to state to 
you, that we see no reason to dissent from the opinion 
expressed by the Court of Directors in their letter of the 
13th June, 1838.” 

Sir James Carnac accordingly proceeded to Bombay, 
and no sooner did he arrive, than without an atom of evi¬ 
dence in addition to that which he had already seen in 
England, but influenced no doubt by the specious and pre¬ 
judiced arguments of the members of the Council over 
which he came to preside, his sentiments underwent an 
entire change ; and he expressed]: his perfect conviction of 
the ex-Raja’s guilt on all three charges. As to the manner 
in which the case should be dealt with, the new Governor 
thought there were but three modes of meeting it. 

1st. By subjecting his Highness to a formal trial. 

2nd. By at once commencing hostilities, and taking 
possession of his territories. 

3rd. By addressing to his Highness such remonstrance as 

* Par. pa. 46. t Par. pa. 46. X Par. pa. 253. 


177 

might appear expedient, and passing over his past offences, 
in the hope that the exercise of clemency might give rise 
to better feeling. 

He enumerates various objections to the first of these 
modes of disposing of the case, resting principally upon the 
difficulties and inconvenience that would be met with in 
carrying it into effect, none of which, however, are of any 
weight against the absolute right of the accused to be 
heard before he is condemned : his real reason for opposing 
an inquiry, Sir James Carnac reserves to the last, # and de¬ 
clares, with considerable candour, that “such a commission 
as has been recommended would be inexpedient, unless we 
were quite certain of the result , for if the inquiry should ter¬ 
minate in an acquittal, we should lose something in point of 
character , while the Raja would be little benefited.” 

The second course Sir James Carnac discards as not at 
present necessary, and which could, if desirable, be pursued 
at any time. “ The Raja,” he says, “ is altogether at our 
mercy, and the execution of an order to dispossess him of 
his territories would scarcely be a more difficult work than 
to sign such an orderand yet, as we have seen, his riches 
and power were considered so formidable by Colonel Ovans 
and Sir R. Grant, that a fair trial of his case could not be 
obtained if he were left in possession of them ! 

The third mode of dealing with the case was that which 
Sir James Carnac was disposed to adopt, and he proposed,f 
in tne first instance, to send a letter to the ex-Raja, embody¬ 
ing the sentiments entertained by Government of his con¬ 
duct, and certain requisitions which might ensure his future 
adherence to his engagements, and promote peace and con¬ 
cord between the two Governments, and then to have a 
personal interview with his Highness. 

The proposed letter was to commence by stating as 
follows: — 

<c 1st. That after a careful and attentive perusal and con¬ 
sideration of the evidence, it is my painful duty to inform 
* Par. pa. 254. f p ar . pa . 055 . 


N 


178 


him that I entertain no doubt whatever that his irregular 
and unwarrantable communications with the Goa authori¬ 
ties during a term of years, his intrigues with Appa Sahib, 
the ex-Raja of Nagpore, and the countenance and support 
which he gave to the attempt to seduce from their allegi¬ 
ance certain native officers in the service of the British 
Government, have been fully proved. 

“ 2nd. That these proceedings indicate that his Highness, 
unmindful of the great benefits which he has derived from 
the Honourable Company, has entertained hostile designs 
towards their Government at a time when he was openly 
professing to be on the most intimate terms of friendship 
and alliance. 

6i 3rd. That by these acts he has most justly incurred 
the penalty prescribed in his treaty with Government, 
namely, the forfeiture of all the rights and possessions con¬ 
ferred upon him. 

“ 4th. That, nevertheless, the British Government has 
resolved to overlook his past conduct, and to grant an 
anmesty on the following conditions 

The proposed conditions were,* “ That his Highness 
should promise a future compliance with the terms of the 
5th article of the treaty of 1819 : that he should be guided 
in all matters by the advice of the British Resident at his 
Court: that he should refer all matters in dispute between 
himself and the Jagheerdars; that Appa Sahib, the Raja’s 
brother, should be at liberty to reside where he chose, with 
the same allowance from the Sattara Government as he 
had hitherto received : that certain persons to be named 
by Colonel Ovans, should be excluded from his Highness’s 
councils, and that his Highness should promise not to 
injure the persons who had taken part in the proceedings 
against, him, but should continue to them all property, 
rights, privileges, and allowances which they enjoyed in 
July, 1836 ” 

A draft of the proposed letter, thus commencing with a 
* Par. pa. 256. 


179 


positive assertion of the ex-Raja’s guilt, was on the 24th of 
June, 1839, submitted* to the Governor-General for his 
approval. His Lordship, however, not unnaturally, consi¬ 
dered it too harsh, more especially as the object was to pre¬ 
serve harmony. “ He would only suggest,” writes the Go¬ 
vernor-General, in his letter to Bombay of the 11th of July, 
1839,f “ that great care be taken in framing the letter to 
the Raja, so guardedly and yet so decidedly to express the 
views held by Government in his case, as that, if possible, 
discussion shall not be provoked or admitted upon his own 
guilt or innocence; and it may be doubted whether it has 
not been proposed too distinctly to assert the proof of per¬ 
sonal criminality, and whether the assertions may not appear 
in too great a degree to be inconsistent with the leniency 
which follows.” The letter concludes by stating, that in 
the event of the Raja rejecting the terms proposed to him 
by Sir J. Carnac, “ his Lordship would willingly rely upon 
the judgment and discretion of the Governor of Bombay, 
and be prepared to support any strong decision upon which 
he might determine, whether that decision might be in the 
deposition of the then Raja, for the substitution of his brother 
in the Raj, or for any modified course of curtailing his poli¬ 
tical and military power.” 

On receipt of these instructions, the Bombay Government, 
instead of preparing a fresh letter to be sent to the ex-Raja, 
which might be less offensive in its terms, and more in ac¬ 
cordance with the views expressed by the Governor-General, 
abandoned the idea of such a communication altogether ; 
and Sir James Carnac proceeded at once to Sattara. 

On the 23rd of August, 1839, the day following the ar¬ 
rival of the Governor of Bombay at Sattara, Colonel Ovans, 
by his directions, proceeded to the ex-Raja, to invite his 
Highness to a personal conference with the Governor. In 
the course of this interview, Colonel Ovans strongly recom¬ 
mended J the ex-Raja to accede to the terms which would 

* Par. pa. 257. t Additional Correspondence, pa. 7. 

t Par. pa. 1142. 

N 2 


180 


be proposed by the Governor, as otherwise he (Colonel 
Ovans) could not answer for the consequences. 

On the same day his Highness came to the Residency, 
and a meeting took place between him and Sir James Car- 
nac, in the presence of Mr. Anderson, Colonel Ovans, and 
Mr. Willoughby—at which, after stating his thorough con¬ 
viction of his Highness’s guilt, and reminding him of his 
dependent condition, Sir James informed him, that, on cer¬ 
tain conditions, the British Government were willing to 
pardon what had occurred. 

“ During this address,” as Sir James Carnac himself re¬ 
lates the particulars of this interview, * “ the Raja evinced 
a considerable degree of impatience, and frequently inter¬ 
rupted me by abrupt declarations that he had committed no 
breach of alliance. When I had concluded, he stated that 
he regarded me as his friend and well-wisher—asserted that 
the accusations against him originated in the intrigues of 
his enemies—that as long as the British Government en¬ 
tertained the idea that he had cherished hostile designs, he 
would agree to nothing, but this idea being removed, he 
would agree to anything I proposed ; that he would consent 
to anything except to abandon his religion , or to acknowledge 
that he had been our enemy; that he would receive any con - 
ditions , reply to them , and vindicate his conduct generally . 
— Finally , he observed , that if I had not leisure to attend to 
him personally , he could communicate vjhat he had to say 
through the Resident” To this the Governor replied, that 
“ had he come to Sattara to inflict the penalty incurred by 
the violations of the treaty of 1819, further inquiry might 
perhaps have been expedient, but as he had come to over¬ 
look and not to punish, this was quite unnecessary.” A 
paper was then placed in the Raja’s hands, which he was 
required to sign, as the conditions of the proposed amnesty, 
and which was in the following terms :+ 

“ Information having been received by the British Go¬ 
vernment that your Highness, misled by evil advisers, had, 

* Par. pa. 268. t Vide Par. papers, p. 271. 


181 


in breach of the treaty which placed you on the throne, en¬ 
tered into communications hostile to the British Government, 
an inquiry into these accusations was considered indispen¬ 
sable, This inquiry has satisfied the British Government 
that your Highness has exposed yourself to the sacrifice of 
its alliance and protection. Nevertheless, moved by consi¬ 
derations of clemency towards your Highness and your 
family, the British Government has resolved entirely to 
overlook what has passed, on the following conditions, 
namely, 

“ First, That your Highness now binds yourself strictly, 
and in good faith, to act up literally to all the articles of the 
treaty of the 25th September, 1819, and especially to the 
second article of that treaty, which is as follows : 

“ £ The Raja, for himself and for his heirs and successors, 
engages to hold the territory in subordinate co-operation 
with the British Government, and to be guided in all mat¬ 
ters by the advice of the British agent at his Highness’s 
court.’ 

“ Second, That your Highness binds yourself to pay your 
brother Appa Sahib Maharaj whatever allowances he has 
heretofore received, and to put him in possession of all his 
private property; and should any dispute arise on this sub¬ 
ject, the same is to be referred to the Resident for adjust¬ 
ment. Appa Sahib Maharaj is also to be permitted to 
reside at any place he himself may choose, under the pro¬ 
tection of the British Government. 

« Third, That Bulwunt Rao Chitnavees be dismissed 
from your Highness’s counsels, and not permitted to reside 
within your Highness’s territory without the sanction of the 
British Government. 

« Fourth, The persons whose names are inserted in the 
separate list, having been guaranteed by the British Go¬ 
vernment, in person, property, and allowances of every de¬ 
scription, as the same stood in July, 1836, this guarantee is 
to be binding on your Highness, and all complaints against 
them are to be referred to the Resident. Should it appear 
necessary hereafter to the British Government, to add the 
names of any other persons to this list, the same guarantee 


182 


i& to be extended to them, and it is to be acted upon in good 
faith by your Highness, in any manner that may be pointed 
out by the British Government; all complaints against these 
persons are also to be referred to the British Resident for 
his adjustment. 

“ The above are all the terms to be agreed to by your 
Highness, and these conditions are to be considered as sup¬ 
plemental to the treaty of the 25th September, 1819, and 
to be signed and sealed as such by your Highness; and 
while it is announced to your Highness, that there can be 
no modification in these terms, as your Highness’s sincere 
well-wisher, the British Government offers them in the con¬ 
fidence that your Highness’s penetration will recognise their 
moderation, and the expediency of a prompt acquiescence. 
It is confidently expected also, that the clemency of the 
British Government in preserving your state (raj), will be 
duly appreciated by your Highness, as it cannot fail to be 
by the general voice of this country, and induce your High¬ 
ness, for the future, scrupulously to maintain the relations 
of friendship and mutual confidence, by acting up to the 
provisions and principles of the treaty.” 

Sir James Carnac, though professing, and probably sin¬ 
cerely, the most benevolent sentiments towards the accused 
Prince, thus became, in the hands of his Highness’s inve¬ 
terate enemies, the most effective agent in consummating 
his downfall. The above conditions were not framed with¬ 
out previous consultation with Colonel Ovans: and the 
handwriting of that officer, and of his worthy assistant Bal- 
lajec Punt Nattoo, is visible in more than one of the clauses. 
They were too well acquainted with the character of the 
ex-Raja to imagine, that, while conscious of innocence, he 
would affix his name to a paper proclaiming himself a 
traitor; and the latter at least, was fully sensible that he 
could not remain with safety in Sattara if his Highness 
were allowed to examine into the infamous conspiracy which 
he had fomented. Hence the preamble and concluding 
clause of the proposed conditions. 

The ex-Raja at once refused to sign the paper shown to 


183 


him, and asked what violations of the treaty he had been 
guilty of. The three principal charges were then enume¬ 
rated to him, and on his being asked, with reference to the 
alleged communications with the ex-Raja of Nagpoor, 
whether he could deny that he had received letters from 
him, he forcibly answered that, a “ letter from a person does 
not establish guilt against the party to whom it is addressed. 
Where are my answers? There is Mr. Anderson: he may 
receive a letter: but this would be no proof that he 
answered it, or that he committed any fault in receiving it.” 
This was putting the case against him in the proper light: 
yet because his Highness, instead of repeating a denial 
which he had already made over and over again, and to 
which he knew from experience that his accusers would 
pay no attention, endeavoured to show the total want of 
evidence against him in the case alluded to, Sir James 
Carnac, with acuteness worthy of his predecessor, infers 
that he was therefore conscious of guilt. 

The next day Colonel Ovans again waited* on the ex- 
Raj a by the directions of the Governor, and again pressed 
his Highness to sign the paper of conditions. He how¬ 
ever, persisted in his refusal, stating with regard to the pro¬ 
posed guarantee to the witnesses, that “ it would involve him 
in constant trouble and difficulty ; that it was not his inten¬ 
tion to injure those men, but that he wished to prove to the 
Resident, that they were men of bad character and his 
enemies, and that by degrees he would completely establish 
this to the Resident’s satisfaction.” His Highness observed, 
that he had always been the friend of the British Govern¬ 
ment, and that their friendship was all he wanted; that he 
had formerly given in a yad, stating that until confidence 
was restored, they should take the management of his 
country into their hands, and that he was ready to agree to 
this : but by signing this yad he considered that he would 
forfeit his reputation, and it was better for him for a time 
to retire, 

* Par. pa. 1142. 


184 


In the afternoon of the same day his Highness again 
saw the Governor, and repeated his refusal to sign the 
paper. 

Two more interviews took place between the ex- Raja and 
Colonel Ovans, and one between his Highness and Sir 
James Carnac. In the first meeting* with Colonel Ovans, 
his Highness begged to be allowed to show to him, which 
he declared he could do if he were protected from native 
interference, that the witnesses against him were altogether 
unworthy of credit. He was, however, cut short by the 
Resident, who observed, that the main point which he had 
now to determine upon was whether he would accept the 
conditions of the amnesty offered by the Governor or not. 
At the meeting with Sir James Carnac, the ex-Raja de¬ 
livered to him certain papers, some of which have been 
already alluded to, and which showed that forgeries of his 
Highness’s name and seal had been carried on for some 
time at the instigation of one of his chief accusers. Every 
effort to obtain justice was, however, in vain; he was told 
that the documents he had given to theGovernor did not bear 
upon the question at issue, and that if he did not sign the 
conditions he would be sent to Benares, and his throne aud 
kingdom given to his brother. True to himself, however, the 
ex-Raja still refused to preserve his kingdom by a false 
acknowledgment of guilt, choosing rather to pass the re¬ 
mainder of his days in an honourable prison, than to 
accept a throne to be purchased by the loss of reputation. 
With every inducement to yield, his throne and liberty at 
stake, and with the prospect of immediate banishment to a 
distant country, he resolutely expressed his determination 
not to sign a document which would have extricated him 
from all difficulty, but which would at the same time have 
branded him as a hypocrite and a traitor. If there ever 
was a case in which innocence could be presumed from the 
conduct of the party accused, it is presented in that of 
the ex-Raja. Far from shrinking from inquiry, or attempt- 
* Par. pa. 1143. 


18 ”) 

ing to shield those alleged to be jointly implicated with 
himself, he showed throughout the utmost eagerness for a 
full and complete investigation: while the Resident was 
purchasing evidence from some parties and imprisoning 
otners who refused to state what w T as required from them, 
he abstained altogether from corruption or intimidation: 
and finally refused to accept indemnity for crimes which he 
denied that he had ever committed, on conditions which he 
rightly considered dishonourable to himself. “ Guilt,” says 
Mr. Tucker,* in recording his dissent from the decision 
of his brother Directors confirming the deposal of the ex- 
Raja, 4 would have found it easy to accept the conditions 
proposed, in order to escape from the threatened penalty. 
The consciousness of rectitude must be strong, when it im¬ 
pels a man to make a great sacrifice to a sense of honour, 
however mistaken: and I must own that I cannot regard 
otherwise than with feelings of deep commiseration that 
Hindoo, who could resolve to sacrifice a principality, to 
abandon his treasures, to relinquish his home, and remove 
his family to a distant part of the country, rather than 
make a slight concession, which he felt must compromise 
his character.” 

Mr. Shepherd, another Director, on the same Occasion, 
recordsf his opinion that the preamble of the conditions 
which his Highness was called upon to sign, entangled him 
in an admission of guilt : and that it also involved the 
Government in the glaring inconsistency of propounding a 
principle which required the strongest proof of the Raja’s 
unworthiness to reign, as a necessary condition on which he 
was to be continued on the Gadee. “Who,” says he, 

“ will deny that his rejection of the proposal, furnishes pre¬ 
sumptive evidence of his innocence, and raises him more 
in the estimation of the world than if he had ignominiously 
complied for the sake of retaining his sovereignty.” 

Ready as his accusers have generally shewn themselves, 
to infer the ex-Raja’s consciousness of guilt from his conduct 
* Par. pa. 1258. t Par. pa. 1259. 


186 


throughout these discussions, no attempt has been made, 
and indeed it would have been in vain, to assign any other 
motive for his refusal to accede to Sir James Carnac’s con¬ 
ditions than a sense of innocence, and a determination to 
endure any ignominy and oppression rather than sacrifice 
his good name 

Under the semblance of friendship and clemency, Sir 
James Carnac’s policy towards the ex-Raja was infinitely 
more oppressive and unjust than that of Sir R. Grant. It 
was at least admitted by the latter, that the accused Prince 
was entitled to a hearing before his case was finally decided 
—and the most inveterate of his enemies did not attempt 
to deny this right; yet Sir James Carnac, on his Highness 
refusing to comply with terms, which, even if the Governor 
were himself blind to their offensive nature, Colonel 
Ovans, who so well understood the case, could have told 
him would meet with no other reception, reiterated his 
conviction of his Highness’s guilt, denied the expediency 
or propriety of giving him a hearing, and under the ample 
authority conferred by the Governor-General, proceeded at 
once to the extreme measure of deposing and banishing 
him to Benares. Unjust and tyrannical as such a course 
would have been, even if grounded on the exparte and 
most suspicious evidence against the ex-Raja, it is doubly 
so when occasioned solely by his refusal to perjure himself 
by a confession of offences which he had never committed. 

On the 28t,h of August, two days after his final inter¬ 
view with the Governor, another attempt was made to 
induce his Highness to commit himself. On that day 
Ballajee Punt Nattoo sent a man named Bhashkarpant to 
the ex-Raja, to say, that “ if his Highness would grant him a 
Jagheer of twelve thousand rupees, annual rent, in perpe¬ 
tuity, he would restore the differences now existing between 
the Raja and the Honourable Company.” This insidious 
proposal, it is needless to say, was rejected with contempt; 
but it is remarkable, that Ballajee Punt Nattoo has been 
since endowed hy the present Raja of Sattara, in return for 


187 

his treachery to his former master, with enam villages of the 
annual value of eight thousand rupees, and that Colonel 
Ovans # and the Bombay Government! endeavoured, though 
without success,J to obtain from the Court of Directors an 
expression of their approbation of this grant. The triumph 
of the Bombay Government over their unfortunate victim 
seems indeed to have been the signal for heaping rewards 
on all who had been instrumental in effecting it; and the 
annuity of ^500. a-year, which Colonel Ovans now enjoys, 
in addition to his already ample salary as Resident at Sat- 
tara, shows how highly his exertions were appreciated by 
his superiors. A statement in writing to the effect above 
recited, was made by the man Bhashkarpant, and was 
among his Highness’s papers when they were seized by the 
Resident, at his deposal. 

Finding it impossible to persuade his Highness to agree 
to his terms, Sir James Carnac left Sattara, and on the 
30th of August, 1839, addressed a letter§ to Colonel Ovans, 
enclosing a draft of a proclamation of the deposal of his 
Highness, and the elevation of his brother to the throne in 
his place. With reference to the future treatment of the 
deposed Prince, the Governor wrote :— £C You will be care¬ 
ful to provide, in the most efficient manner, for the personal 
comfort and convenience of the Raja and his family, and to 
require the Sattara Government to furnish everything that 
may be necessary for their accommodation. He is , in fact, 
to be regarded and treated as an object of sympathy, and 
not of punishment. You will inform him that he will be 
permitted to reside within the Honourable Company’s terri¬ 
tories, at such place as may be selected by the Right Ho¬ 
nourable the Governor-General of India, and that an annual 
allowance will be assigned from the Sattara revenues for 
the support and respectability of himself and those members 
of his family who may choose to accompany him. Further, 
that all property belonging to him, bond fide private, and 

* 2nd Book, E. I. C. printed Sattara papers, 113. t Ditto, 112. 

^ Ditto, 116. § Par. pa. 469. 


188 

not appertaining to the state, will, on his peaceable submis¬ 
sion, not be interfered with.” Sir James Carnac, if he 
really expected his recommendation of sympathy and care 
for the personal comfort of the ex-Raja to be attended to, 
must have been greatly ignorant of the nature of the man 
he addressed. We shall see how far his instructions were 
acted up to. Before day-break on the morning of the 5th 
of September, 1839, a company of soldiers was sent to the 
palace by Colonel Ovans, aud directed by the unnatural 
and treacherous brother of the ex-Raja, to his Highness’s 
bed-chamber. The unfortunate Prince was seized in his 
bed, and—accompanied by Balia Sahib Senaputtee and a 
few other devoted followers—was immediately hurried off 
on his way to Nimb, a village about eight miles from Sattara. 
The greater part of the treasure found in his palace, includ¬ 
ing the private property of the ex-Raja, was taken possession 
of by Colonel Ovans, as belonging to the state of Sattara ; 
and the Resident also seized and examined his Highness’s 
private papers and correspondence, among which, however, 
he was compelled to admit* that nothing was found throw¬ 
ing any further light upon the Goa or Joudpore intrigues. 

On the same day on which the deposed Prince was re¬ 
moved from Sattara, the following proclamation!- was issued 
by the Resident at Sattara, under the authority of the 
Governor of Bombay:— 

PROCLAMATION, 

Issued by the Resident at Sattara , under the authority of the Hon. Sir 
James Rivett Carnac, Bart. Governor of Bombay, dated Sattara , 
Sept. 5, 1839. 

1. When the British Government was compelled by the unprovoked 
hostility of Bajee Row, to declare war against him, a Proclamation, dated 
the 11th of February, 1818, was issued by the Hon. Mr. Elphinstone, sole 
Commissioner for the settlement of the territories conquered from the 
Peishwa, setting forth the circumstances which had rendered that measure 
imperative. In this it was announced as follows:— 

“ The Raja of Sattara, who is now a prisoner in Bajee Row’s hands, will 
be released and placed at the head of an independent sovereignty of such 
an extent as may maintain the Raja and his family in comfort and dignity. 

* Par. pa. 477. f Par. pa. 1153. 


189 


With this view, the fort of Sattara has been taken, the Raja’s flag has been 
set up in it, and his former ministers have been called into employment. 
Whatever country is assigned to the Raja will be administered by him, 
and he will be bound to establish a system of justice and order. The rest 
of the country will be held by the Hon. Company. The revenue will be 
collected by the Government; but all property, real or personal, will be 
secured All wuttum and enam (hereditary lands), wursharuns (annual 
stipends), and all religious and charitable establishments will be protected, 
and all religious sects will be tolerated, and their customs maintained, as 
far as it is just and reasonable. 

“ 2- The Raja of Sattara having been rescued from captivity on the 
defeat of the Peishwa, at Aslitee, was, pursuant to the above declaration 
placed on the throne, and a treaty of alliance and friendship was concluded 
between his Highness and the British Government, dated the 25th day of 
September, 1819. By the second article of this compact—the Raja, for 
himself, and for his heirs and successors, engaged to hold his territory in 
subordinate co-operation with the British Government, and to be guided in 
all matters by the advice of the British agent at his Highness’s Court. By 
the fifth article, the Raja, for himself, and for his heirs and successors, en¬ 
gaged to forbear from all intercourse with foreign powers, and with all 
sirdars, jagheerdars, chiefs, and ministers, and all persons of whatever de¬ 
scription, who were not rendered subject to bis authority, and to abstain from 
all connexion and correspondence with them. It was further stipulated by 
the same article, that any affairs that might arise with the aforesaid states 
and persons relating to his Highness should be exclusively conducted by 
the British Government, and that if (for the purpose of forming matrimonial 
connexions for his Highness’s family, or for any similar purpose), his 
Highness should have occasion to communicate with persons not rendered 
subject to his authority, such communication should be made entirely through 
the political agent; finally, it was declared that this article was a funda¬ 
mental condition of the agreement, and that any departure from it on the 
Raja’s part would subject him to the loss of all the advantages secured to 
him by the said treaty. 

u 3. Notwithstanding this solemn compact, it has been conclusively 
established to the conviction of the British Government, that the Raja, 
unmindful of his obligations and of the generosity which restored him to 
liberty and conferred on him a throne, has, for a series of years, held clan¬ 
destine communications, contrary to the stipulations contained in the fifth 
article of the treaty ; and he has cherished ambitious designs hostile to the 
British Government; that he has advanced claims and pretensions incom¬ 
patible with the letter and spirit of the treaty ; and that he has conducted 
himself in a manner subversive of the alliance formed between the two 
states. 

“ 4 . Nevertheless, the British Government, willing to believe that the 
Raja has been betrayed into these acts by the counsels of evil and designing 
men, and in the hope and expectation that the Raja- would appreciate its 
clemency, and abandon the dangerous course into which he had been 
seduced, resolved to overlook and forgive the past—on his agreeing for 
the future to act strictly and in good faith according to the treaty, to 
dismiss from his counsels the minister who had been chiefly instrumental 


190 


in creating .disunion between tbe two states, and to abstain from injuring 
those persons through whose information his violation of the treaty had 
been established. 

“ 5. With this view, the Hon. Sir James Rivett Carnac, Bart. Governor 
of Bombay, vested with full authority from the Right Hon. Lord Auck¬ 
land, Governor General of India, proceeded in person to Sattara, and having 
explained to the Raja the dangerous position in which he had placev 
himself, and having communicated, both verbally and in writing, the con¬ 
ditions on which the British Government was willing to grant an amnesty for 
the past, urged him to the compliance with those terms, as the only mode by 
which relations of amity and friendship with him could be restored. 

t( 0. The Raja, after repeated conferences and ample opportunity for 
reflection, and after having been explicitly warned of the consequences, 
rejected these conditions; and the British Government, being therefore 
convinced that it is impossible any longer to maintain friendly relations 
with a Prince who lias shewn himself so regardless of a treaty entered into 
under the peculiar circumstances above recited, hereby declares the alliance 
between the two states dissolved, and its intention to enforce the penalty 
specified in the fifth article of the treaty entered into by the Raja, and 
dated the 25th of September, 1819. 

« 7. The British Government, however, having no views of advantage 
and aggrandizement, has resolved to invest the brother and next in suc¬ 
cession to the Raja with the sovereignty of the Sattara state, according to 
the limits fixed by the treaty of the 25th of September, 1819. He is 
therefore hereby declared Raja of Sattara, under the title of Shreemunt 
Maharaj Shahjce Chuterputtee of Sattara, and all persons residing within 
his territory are hereby required to render to him allegiance. 

“ C. OVANS, 

“ Resident at Sattara.” 


Not a word, be it observed, about the attempted seduc¬ 
tion of the Sepoys—not a word about treasonable commu¬ 
nications with Goa or Joudpore. Nothing but vague alle¬ 
gations of designs hostile to the British Government, claims 
and pretensions incompatible with the treaty, and conduct 
subversive of the alliance between the two states. What 
inference can be drawn from the omission of all mention of 
the original charges against the ex-Raja, but that his ac¬ 
cusers felt that th$y were unproved, and could not, there¬ 
fore, venture to promulgate them ? 

On the 24th October, 1839, the Governor-General sig¬ 
nified* his approval of the deposal of the ex-Raja, and of 
the selection of Benares as his place of imprisonment—the 
amount of the stipend to be allowed to him out of the Sat- 

* Par. pa. 287. 


191 


tara revenues his Lordship left to the decision of the Gover¬ 
nor of Bombay; and on the 21st of November, Colonel 
Ovans was accordingly instructed* to intimate to his High¬ 
ness the place to which he would be sent, and that a pension 
of 10,000 rupees a month would be allowed him, to be 
paid by the Sattara Government. 

Ihe deposal of his Highness was, subsequently, on the 
1st of April, 1840, confirmed! by the Court of Directors, 
who, with glaring inconsistency, and without attempting to 
account for their change of sentiment, contradicted the 
opinions they had repeatedly expressed upon the case, and 
signified, in what Mr. Forbes justly designated^ as a brief 
and meagre document, their approbation of the measures 
of the Indian authorities. The Court, however, were not 
unanimous in their approval of the proceedings of the 
Indian authorities. The example of Mr. Tucker and Mr. 
Shepherd in recording their disapprobation of the treatment 
of the ex-Raja, was followed by Mr. Cotton and Mr. 
Forbes,§ the latter of whom, in recording his dissent from 
the decision of his colleagues, exposed with clearness and 
ability, the defects in the evidence against the ex-Raja, and 
the injustice with which he had been treated. 

On the 7th of December his Highness left Nimb for 
Benares under a military guard commanded by Lieutenant 
Cristall of the 8th Native Infantry. Even in the selection 
of the officer appointed to conduct the ex-Raja to his place 
of confinement, Colonel Ovans shewed that his thirst for 
persecution was yet unslaked. Far from being treated as 
an object of sympathy, his Highness was hurried along with¬ 
out any regard to his personal comfort or convenience; 
and even his entreaties for a few hours halt in consequence 
of the serious illness of his devoted friend and relation, the 
Senaputtee, was refused, as being only an excuse for loiter¬ 
ing on the road. The consequence was, that at the end of 
the day’s march the unfortunate officer was found dead in 
his palanquin. It is just to observe, however, that this con- 
* Par. pa. 486. t Par. pa. 1252. * Par pa. 1260. § Par. pa. 1258-59. 


192 


duct of Lieutenant Cristali was not allowed to pass without 
the reprobation of the Court of Directors, who, in their 
letter to Bombay of the 2d of September, 1840, expressed 
their serious displeasure at his harshness and inhumanity. 

Previous to his departure for Nimb, the ex-Raja asserted 
his right to the private property which was found in his 
palace, which was entirely composed of savings out of his 
privy purse while on the Gadee of Sattara, and which, as 
we have seen, Sir James Carnac had directed should be 
delivered to him on his peaceable submission to his deposal. 

On the ground of a counter-claim on the part of the pre¬ 
sent Raja, Colonel Ovans refused* to part with this property 
till authorized by the Bombay Government, who, on the 
25th November, 1839, referredf the question to the Gover¬ 
nor-General, stating the opinion of Sir'James Carnac to 
be that the whole of the claims of the ex-Raja were inad¬ 
missible, and that the property which he claimed should be 
considered as appertaining to the State, and, as such, be 
made over to the present Raja. On the 19th December, 
a letter^ was written by the Supreme Government, leaving 
the matter to the decision of the Governor of Bombay, who 
accordingly directed^ that the property should be declared 
to belong to the Sattara State, and be transferred to the 
present Raja; and this decision was ultimately approved of 
by the Court of Directors.|| 

On the 29th of March, 1840,If the deposed Prince arrived 
at Benares, and was placed under the charge of Captain 
Carpenter, who had already the superintendence of the ex- 
Raj a of Coorg—a list was taken of the little property and 
the few trinkets which his Highness and his family had been 
suffered to bring with them ; and he was informed that no 
part of such property could be disposed of or pledged without 
permission; and that he must be prepared to produce them 
when required. 

* Par. pa. 488. t Par. pa. 296. $ Par. pa. additional correspondence, 10. 

§ Par. pa. additional correspondence, p. 9. || Additional Par. pa. 45. 

If Par. pa. ditto 16. 


193 


Still anxious as to the safety of his private property, de¬ 
tained by Colonal Ovans, the ex-Raj a, by the assistance of 
Captain Carpenter, who has throughout treated him with 
kindness and courtesy, forwarded* to the supreme Govern¬ 
ment of India two statements, the one relating to the pro¬ 
perty claimed by himself, and the other to certain effects of 
the late Senaputtee, which he had been compelled by 
Colonel Ovans to give up in the course of the journey to 
Benares, on the ground of an alleged debt due from him 
on account of the troops at Sattara. In answer he was told 
that his claim would be decided by the Governor of Bom¬ 
bay, who, as we have seen, put the finishing stroke to the 
unjust and tyrannical measures enforced against his High¬ 
ness, by robbing him of his property and awarding it to his 
treacherous and unworthy brother. 

Stripped thus of all that he was entitled to call his own, 
the sting of poverty was now added to the heavy load of 
misfortunes by which the ex Raja was oppressed; and on 
the 15th of November, 1840, Captain Carpenter writes, f 
“he informs me that since his deposition he has been much 
distressed for want of funds, which I really believe to be 
the case, and I know he has not even had the means of pur¬ 
chasing necessary clothing for his family, since their arrival 
in Benares , as my advances to him have been merely suffi¬ 
cient to subsist his family, followers, and cattle, lest 1 should 
exceed the spirit of your instructions.” With regard to the 
private property claimed by his Highness, Captain Car¬ 
penter observes, “ I have taken pains to ascertain from 
what source the said property was derived, and it appears, 
that in Captain Grant’s time, two treasuries were established 
by that officer’s advice, the one private, in which the sums 
allotted for the support of the Prince and his family were 
deposited, the other for the public purposes of the State, 
wherein there were upwards of 6 lacs and 40,000 rupees, 
at the time the Raja was dethroned, which form no part of 
his claim ; but he declares the whole of the money, jewels, 

* Add. correspondence, 17. t Add. correspondence, 46. 


o 


194 


and other property, claimed by him as private, are the 
savings of his privy purse, or surplus of the private treasury, 
with the exception of about 125,000 rupees’worth of jewels, 
&c. inherited from his mother on her decease, and about a 
lac of rupees in value, his share of property divided by her, 
during her lifetime, between his two brothers and himself: 
one item amongst the various property claimed being a car¬ 
riage, made for the ex-Raja, to order of Captain Grant, and 
paid from his private funds, could hardly belong to any 
other person. 

“The ex-Raja has in his possession three letters signed by 
Colonel Ovans, the Resident at Sattara, and dated the 5th, 
6th, and 13th of September, respectively, to the effect that 
his private property would be surrendered to him, and sug¬ 
gesting that lists of such portions thereof as he wished to 
take away, as well as those articles he desired to leave in 
his palace, might be furnished, that which properly be¬ 
longed to the state being retained. Subsequently, on the 
24th of September, a Mahratta yad, or memorandum 
without any signature or name attached, and dated the 4th 
of September, the day previous to that on which the Raja 
was deposed, was delivered to his Highness by Kessoo 
Yeshwunt Auktee, Kannda of the Khasgee Maliyat, who 
said he had been desired to do so by the Resident; it pur¬ 
ported to be a claim, apparently on the part of the present 
Raja, Appa Sahib, to the extent of 6 lacs, and 73,369 
rupees, 5 annas; 5 lacs, 40,036 rupees whereof were 
said to be due on account of allowance made for the sup¬ 
port of his mother and brother, Bhow Sahib, during their 
lifetime ; the whole arrears of the former, and half of the 
latter of which, he claimed from the date they respectively 
deceased, until that on which the ex-Raja was dethroned, 
the one having been dead seventeen, and the other up¬ 
wards of eighteen years and a half. The Yad or memoran¬ 
dum above referred to, was accompanied by five others, 
bearing different dates, but also without any names or sig¬ 
natures, and contained a list of the greater part of the ex- 


195 


Raja’s private property, which it was intimated ought not 
to be removed; there were also various other items added 
to the original claim of 673,369 rupees, 5 annas, and 
amongst them horses and camels said to have belonged to 
the ex-Raja’s late mother and brother, although those 
persons had been dead many years, and the animals claimed 
had long ceased to exist. The ex-Raja wrote a letter to 
the Resident in reply to these papers, denying the justice 
of his brother’s claims, but received no answer. 

“ I have carefully examined,’’ continues Captain Carpen¬ 
ter, “the documents referred to in the preceding para¬ 
graph, and therefore believe the statements it contains to 
be substantially correct, and if it be the pleasure of the 
Right Honourable the Governor in Council, the originals 
or translations thereof shall be submitted for his Lordship’s 
further information.” 

The letter concludes by stating the writer’s convictiom 
after a most minute and laborious investigation into the 
actual state of the ex-Raja’s affairs, that no reductions, how¬ 
ever extensive they might be, would enable him to subsist 
with anything like comfort, upon so small an allowance as 
10,000 rupees per mensem ; and that if an adequate pen¬ 
sion were not settled on him, and his private property re¬ 
stored, or some equivalent, his position in Benares could 
hardly fail to be one continued scene of poverty and degra¬ 
dation. 

No effect, however, was produced by the generous at¬ 
tempt of Captain Carpenter to alleviate the sufferings of 
his charge; and he was told, # that the measures of the 
Bombay Government, with reference to the ex-Raja’s 
allowance, and the disposal of his personal property, having 
been approved by the Court of Directors, his Highness 
must accommodate himself to the income which had been 
fixed for his maintenance. Colonel Ovans, consistent to 
the last, went even further, and insinuated,f in the face of 
the above statement of Captain Carpenter, that the pension 
* Additional Par. pa. 47. t Additional correspondence, 60 . 


196 


allowed to the ex-Raja was far beyond his expenses, and 
that the surplus was carefully set aside for supplying the 
wants of agents whom he maintained in England, and else¬ 
where. 

Here we have the true reason for the seizure of his 
Highness’s private property, and the determination evinced 
to diminish the scanty income allotted to him by making it 
subject to charges never contemplated at the time of his 
deposal. Colonel Ovans and the Bombay Government 
were, not unreasonably, very unwilling that the ex-Raja 
should have any chance of obtaining from British justice 
that inquiry which they had hitherto successfully avoided : 
and hence we find the former making every effort* to de¬ 
prive him of all power of providing the means of subsist¬ 
ence for such persons as he might send to plead his cause 
in England; while the Bombay Government were doing all 
in their powerf to prevent his having any direct intercourse 
with his Vakeels in London, and to induce the home 
authorities to treat those persons with contempt and neg¬ 
lect ; so successfully, that had it not been for the liberality 
of a gentleman cognizant of the facts of the case, and alive 
to the gross injustice and oppression which had been exer¬ 
cised against the ex-Raja, one at least of those emissaries 
must have died a stranger in a foreign land, a victim 
to sickness and poverty, under the eyes of the very men 
who were deriving their wealth and power from those ter¬ 
ritories which his ancestors had once possessed. 

At the close of this painful narrative, painful alike to the 
lover of truth and justice, and to those who care for British 
honour and reputation, it remains only to entreat the home 
authorities to reconsider dispassionately the case of the ex- 
Raja. Let them call to mind the excellence of his con¬ 
duct and character, so repeatedly acknowledged and 
admired by themselves, during the seventeen years he con¬ 
tinued their ally. Let them read with attention the evi¬ 
dence upon which he has been condemned (if indeed he 
* Additional correspondence, 72, 84. t Par. pa. 1296. 


197 


can be said to have been condemned on charges not one 
of which is mentioned in the Proclamation announcing his 
deposal), discarding altogether the specious and sophistical 
arguments of those who were alike his judges and accusers, 
and remembering that though his right to a defence was 
admitted on all sides, he has as yet had no opportunity of 
disproving the facts alleged against him. Let them reflect 
upon his conduct throughout the discussions which have 
ended in his downfall, and ask their own consciences whe¬ 
ther it has not been uniformly that of a man sensible of 
his own integrity, desiring nothing but a full and open in¬ 
vestigation, and ready to give up everything but honour to 
establish his innocence. And if conviction should at last 
arrive of the injustice of their previous proceedings, let no 
mistaken tenderness for the character of their own officers, 
whether living or dead, no weak unwillingness to confess 
and atone for their own error, prevent their awarding jus¬ 
tice, even at the eleventh hour, to their unfortunate ally, by 
subjecting his case to that close and searching investigation 
which its importance merits, and by restoring to him that 
property of which he has been so shamefully deprived. By 
such a course alone can they regain the confidence of the 
natives of India, which the late proceedings must have 
seriously shaken, and convince them and the world that 
though innocence may for a time be borne down by the 
malice and treachery of wicked and designing men, the arm 
of the British Government, will never fail to be at length 
stretched forth to defend the oppressed and to punish the 
oppressor. 


THE END. 


u. norman, printer, maiden lane, covent garden. 



♦ 


* '* 













> 





Forged Seals of Rnja Seevajee Chuttraputtee, purchased 
by Colonel Ovans for 400 rupees, and produced by him as 
evidence in support of the alleged charges against the ex- 
Raj a of Sattara,—vide par. pa. 818. 


See page 121. 




True impressions. 

(Signed) Colonel Ovans, 
Acting Resident. 


Original Seals of Seevajee Maharaj Chuttraputtee, pro¬ 
duced by Rungo Bapojee, in proof of the forgery of those 
purchased by Colonel Ovans. 


See page 122, 



True impressions. 

(Signed) Rungo Bapojee, 

Vakeel to H. H. the Raja of Sattara, 
now at Benares. 
























viii 

Forged Seals and inscriptions produced to J. A. Dunlop, 
Esq., political agent at Dharwar, to support charges alleged 
against the ex-Raj a of Sattara. 

“ J. A. Dunlop, in his letter to the Bombay Govern¬ 
ment, dated 6th January, 1838, writes the inscriptions on 
the seals is in the name of the present Raja of Sattara;* 
again, hFhis letter dated 19th February, 1838, forwarding 
letters and documents to the Government of Bombay— 
bearing the impressions of these seals—he states,! ‘the 
procuring these documents has given trouble, and exercised 
considerable ingenuity, besides expense , and, after all, I 
cannot feel satisfied of their being genuine.’ ” 


See page 138. 




w 


, //ocnsnj^RT. 

(tfi'ziPtwvm) ft\wim ^ 



* Par. pa. 829. 


t Par. pa. 848. 


$ Par* pa. 829. 


^ Par pa. 830. 


IX 


Original Seals ol Pertaub Shean Maharaj Chuttraputtee, 
(Raja of Sattara) which were left in the possession of 
Colonels Ovans, and which could have shewn the forgery of 
those produced by Colonel Ovans and J. A. Dunlop. 

See page 139. 



True impressions. 

(Signed) RungO Bapojee, 

Vakeel to H. H. the Raja of Sattara, 
now at Benares. 



















f * .- Si' 

ERRATUM. 

Page 43, line 30,/or 250 >wrf 1250 rupees. 






J 


i 


























